Skip to main content

Full text of "Presidential campaign activities of 1972, Senate resolution 60; Watergate and related activities"

See other formats










Phase II: Campaign Practices 

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 4, 9, 10, 11, AND 31, 1973 

Book 11 

Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 













Phase II: Campaign Practices 

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 4, 9, 10, 11, AND 31, 1973 

Book 11 

Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

21-296 O WASHINGTON : 1973 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3 


(Established by S. Res. 60, 93d Congress, 1st Session) 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman 
HOWARD H. BAKER, JE., Tennessee, Vice Chairman 


DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 


Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel 

RuFus L. Bdmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel 

Arthur S. Miller, Chief Consultant 
David M. Dorsbn, Assistant Chief Counsel 
Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel 
James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Car.mine S. Bellino, Chief Investigator 

Wayne H. Bishop, Chief Field Investigator 

Eugene Boyce, Hearings Record Counsel 

Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel 
William T. Mayton, Assistant Counsel 
Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel 

Barry Schochet, Assistant Counsel 

W. Dennis Summers, Assistant Counsel 

James C. Moore, Assistant Counsel 

Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel 

Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Michael J. Madigan, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Richard L. Schultz, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Carolyn M. Andrade, Administrative Assistant 

Carolyn E. Cohen, Office Manager 

Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority 





Thursday, October 4, 1973 4375 

Tuesday. October 9, 1973 4433 

Wednesday, October 10, 1973 4477 

Thursday, October 11. 1973 4565 

Wednesday, October 31, 1973 4635 


Thursday, Octobee 4, 1973 

Kelly, Martin D., hired by Donald Segretti to cause disruption among 

Democratic Presidential primary candidates, accompanied by Phillip K. 

Beck, counsel 4376 

Benz, Robert M., hired by Donald Segretti to recruit and place infiltrators 

into the Democratic candidates' campaigns; accompanied by Delbert L. 

McLaughlin, counsel 4403 

Tuesday, October 9, 1973 

Buckley. John R., former Director of Inspection Division, Office of Equal 
Opportunity. Accepted assignments from Ken Rietz, director of the youth 
division. Committee To Re-Elect the President ; accompanied by Ken- 
neth D. Wood, counsel 4435 

Wednesday, October 10, 1973 

McMinoway, Michael W., hired by representatives of the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President to infiltrate various Democratic campaign orga- 
nizations ; accompanied by Frank E. Haddad. Jr.. counsel 4478 

Taugher, Frederick J., former coordinator of the southern California 

campaign for Senator George McGovern 4536 

Hickman, Gary, lieutenant of the Los Angeles, Calif., Police Department 4556 

Thursday, October 11, 1973 

Stearns, Richard G., former western region campaign director for Senator 
George McGovern ; accompanied by Edward F. Mannino and John M. 
Elliott, counsel 4565 

Mankiewicz. Frank, former political director for the campaign of Sena- 
tor George McGovern 4601 

Wednesday, October 31, 1973 

Lackritz, Marc, staff member of the Select Committee on Presidential 

Campaign Activities 4635 

Bernhard. Berl. former campaign manager of Senator Muskie for the Dem- 
ocratic nomination of 1972, accompanied by two partners of his law 
firm, Ronald Natalie and Harry McPherson. and also by John Merrigan, 
an associate in the same law firm 4644 






Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr Kelly: 4393-1398, 

4401, 4402. Beuz : 4419-4421, 4428, 4432. Buckley : 4471-1474. 
McMinoway: 4505-4513. Tauglier : 4551, 4552. Hickman: 4563. 
Bernhard : 4692-4696. 

Baker, Hon. Howard H., Jr Buckley : 4466-1471. 

McMinoway : 4513-4519. Stearns : 4565, 4586-458S. Bernhard : 

4649, 4650, 4685-4692. 
Talmadge, Hon. Herman E Benz : 4425, 

4426. Buckley: 4450-4454. McMinoway: 4536. Bernhard: 4685. 
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K Kelly: 4389-4391. 

Benz: 4427, 4428. Buckley: 4457-4459. McMinoway: 4519-4522. 

Taugher : 4552, 4553. 
Montova, Hon. Joseph M Kelly: 4398-4400. 

Benz: 4427. 4428. Buckley: 4457-4459. McMinoway: 4519-4522. 

Stearns: 4589, 4590. Mankiewicz : 4627-1634. Bernhard: 4684, 

Gurnev, Hon. Edward J Kelly: 4391^393, 

4400, 4401. Buckley : 4454-4456. McMinoway : 4522-4529. Stearns : 

4592, 4593. 
Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr Benz: 4421-4425, 

4431, 4432. Buckley: 4459-4463, 4474-4476. McMinoway: 4533- 

4536. Taugher: 4555. Mankiewicz: 4631, 4632. 
Dash, Samuel, Chief Counsel and Staff Director McMinoway : 4477-4500. 

Mankiewicz: 4601-4620, 4634. 
Thompson, Fred D., Minority Counsel Buckley : 4448-4450. 

McMinoway: 4501-4505. Taugher: 4542-4551, 4553-1555. Hick- 
man: 4561-4563. Stearns: 4576-4586, 4597^600. Mankiewicz: 

4620-4627. Lackritz : 4642, 4643. 

Edmisten. Rufus L., Deputy Chief Counsel Buckley : 4436-4448. 

Lenzner, Terry F., Assistant Chief Counsel Kelly : 4376-1385, 

4402. Benz: 4403-4415, 4428, 4429. Steams: 4568-^576, 4595- 
4597. Lackritz: 4635-4644. Bernhard: 4644, 4645, 4668-4679. ^ 

Hamilton, James, Assistant Chief Counsel Taugher: 4536-4542. 

Hickman : 4556-4561. 
Liebengood, Howard S., Assistant Minority Counsel Kelly : 4385-1389. 

Benz : 4415-4419. 
Madigan, Michael J., Assistant Minority Counsel Bernhard : 4679-4684. 


No. 227 — (4439) Article from Washington Star by Morris Siegel, re: 

Senator Humphrey 4697 

No. 228 — (4442) Itemized bill for photography supplies purchased from 

Penn Camera Exchange, Inc., by John Buckley, dated 10/22/71- 4698 
Nos. 229A-D — (4551) Four photographs taken by White House photog- 
rapher at a demonstration 4699 

No. 230 — (4556) Resume of Michael McMinoway's activities 4703 

No. 231— (4556) Diary of activities, March 21-31 4705 

No. 232 — (4556) Resume of the Muskie organization in the Wisconsin 

primary 4707 

No. 233— (4556) Diary of activities, April 10-12 4709 

No. 234— (4556) Political analysis of Philadelphia 4712 

No. 235— (4556) Political analysis of California 4714 

No. 236 — (4556) Inliltration of McGovern headquarters, Washington, D.C- 4715 

No. 237— (4556) Infiltration of McGovern staff in Miami 4717 

No 238 — (4556) Documentation of financial transactions between Mr. 

Rainer and Mr. McMinoway from March 17 to July 8. 1972 4718 

No. 239 — (4561) Intradepartmental correspondence to deputy chief Louis 
L. Sporrer from Commander G. N. Beck. Subject : After-action 

report — ^President Nixon's visit — September 27, 1972 4719 

No. 240 — (4561) Death and burglary report on David W. Jenkins 4727 

No. 241 — (4588) Notarized letter to Senator Montoya from Senator Mc- 
Govern re: McGovern not recognizing McMinoway 4743 


No. 242— (4600) Summary of the Muskie voting record 4744 

No. 243 — (4635) Chart illustrating a variety of individuals engaged in 
political surveillance, information gathering or sabotage in the 
1072 Presidential campaign 4637 

No. 244-1* — Harris Poll — Nixon vs. Muskie, January, 1971 : Chronological 
poll results (Nixon-Muskie- Wallace and Nixon-Muskie) 
during period 1971 and 1972 through the preconvention 
period 4764 

Xo. 244-2 — Various staff memorandums relating to financial controls 4766 

No. 244-3 — Affidavit of Muskie campaign bookkeeper and attached com- 
parison of receipts, expenditures, payables, and receivables, 
month-by-month, January 1971 through April 6. 1972 4786 

j^o. 244-4 — Analysis of Muskie campaign employee/consultant headcount, 
sa'aries/fees paid by pay period and summary of staff cuts 
and salary reductions. 1971 and 1972 4790 

No. 244—5 — Fuudraising report.s — direct mail and fundraising events 4792 

No. 244-6 — Memorandums dealing with fundraising policies and practices 4800 

No. 244-7 — Opinion of counsel on fundraising guidelines 4805 

No. 244-8 — Opinion letter regarding contributions of appreciated proi> 

erties and gift tax committees 4806 

No. 244-9 — Copies of letters returning corporate contributions 4809 

No. 244-10— "Canuck" letter materials 4810 

No. 244-11 — Previously entered as exhibit 201 in Book 10, p. 4270. 

No. 244-12 — Previously entered as exhibit 202 in Book 10, p. 4271. 

No. 244-13 — Evans-Novak column reprinting excerpts from purloined staff 

memorandum 4814 

No. 244-14 — New York Times article on Diane Moore infiltration 4815 

No. 244-15 — Previously entered as exhibit 52 in Book 4. p. 1700. 

No. 244-16 — Confidential memorandum describing Senator Muskie's ad- 
vance schedule and relating political strategy for the fall 
and winter of 1971 4817 

No. 244-17 — Mass mailing fraudulently attributed to Senator Muskie (Har- 
ris poll critical of Senator Kennedy) 4847 

No. 244-18 — Partial list of recipients of fraudulent mailing 4850 

No. 244-19 — Disclaimer letter mailetl out by Senator Mu.skie in response 

to fraudulent mailing 4852 

No. 244-20 — Exchange of correspondence between Senator Muskie and 

postal officials concerning the fraudulent mailing 4853 

No. 244—21 — Previously entered as exhibit 204 in Book 10, p. 4275. 

No. 244-22— Previously entered as exhibit 206 in Book 10. p. 4280. 

No. 244-23--Previously entered as exhibit 207 in Book 10, p. 4281. 

No. 244—24 — Chapin memorandum regarding signs to be used at rallies 4858 

No. 244—25 — Previously entere<l as exhibit 214 in Book 10, p. 4292. 

No. 244-26 — Copy of "Muskie Aeeountatoility Project" forwarded to cam- 
paign headquarters by the League of Women Voters' Na- 
tional Office 4859 

No. 244-27 — Previou.sly entered as exhibit 209 in Book 10, p. 4284. 

No. 244-28 — News article concerning wiretaps on Morton Halperin and 
Anthony Lake after their Government tenure and during 
their involvement in the campaign 4884 

No. 244-29 — ^Contemporaneous memorandums dealing with highly unusual 
occurrences on phones of Subcommittee on Air and Water 
Pollution Office 4886 

No. 244-30 — ^lemorandum of Leon Billings dealing with telephone 

incident 4888 

No. 244-31 — Previously entered as exhibit 158 in Book 10, p. 4055. 

No. 245 — (4695) Committee To Re-Elect the President memorandum for 
the Attorney General from Jeb Magruder re : Senator Mus- 
kie's campaign organization 4889 


Letter to the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities with 

attached affidavit of Thomas P. Southwick 4892 

♦Exhibits 244-1 through 244-31 officially made part of the record on page 4695. 
Note. — Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was officially made part of 
the record. 



U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :20 a.m., in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inoiiye, Montoya, Baker, Gur- 
ney, and Weicker. 

Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred 
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief 
counsel ; David M. Dorsen and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief coun- 
sels; Marc Lackritz, James C. Moore, W. Dennis Summers, and Barry 
Schochet, assistant majority counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record 
counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel; Howard S. 
Liebengood, Michael J. Madigan, H. William Shure, and Robert 
Silverstein, assistant minority counsels ; Pauline O. Dement, research 
assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Bruce Jaques, 
Jr., office of Senator Montoya ; A. Searle Field, assistant to "Senator 
Weicker ; John Walz, publications clerk. 

Senator Ervix. The committee will come to order. 

I am sorry I had to go to the Commerce Committee. It was impera- 
tive, and I was in hopes that the senior member, the vice chairman, 
would open the meeting and he should if I am not here. Counsel wnll 
call the first witness. 

Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Chairman, the first witness is Martin Douglas 
Kelly, and he will be interrogated by Mr. Terry Lenzner, the assistant 
chief counsel. Mr. Kelly does have immunity, and you might want to 
speak to that. 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you stand up Mr. Kelly, raise your right 
hand. Do you swear the evidence you shall give to the Senate Select 
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Let the record show that Mr. Kelly is testifying in- 
voluntarily under an order of immunity entered by Chief Judge John 
J. Sirica of the U.S. District Court for "the District of Columbia under 
sections 6002 and 6005 of title 18 of the United States Code, and that 
such order was entered by Judge Sirica at the unanimous request of 
the Senate Select Committee. Counsel may proceed. 



Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Kelly, I see you have counsel with you. Would 
coimsel identify himself, please? 

Mr. Beck. Yes, sir, Mr. Lenzner, Phillip K. Beck. I am a practicing 
attorney in Lakeland, Fla. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Beck. 

Mr. Kelly, you have a short statement. Would you go ahead and 
read that please ? 


Mr. Kelly. Yes. My name is IVIartin D. Kelly. I am 24 years old ; 
live in Miami, Fla., and was born in Fukuoka, Japan. I've previously 
been heavily involved in Florida College Eepublican and Young Re- 
publican activities statewide. There have been several political cam- 
paigns that I have participated in to varied extents and capacities 
since 1968. 

Two years ago I was approached by a man identifying himself as 
Donald Simmons, asking me to join liim in political ventures relat- 
ing to "negative campaigning," or, as it's currently more popularly 
termed, "dirty tricks." My participation in these activities was on my 
own volition, and I was initially paid a modest salary for the purpose 
of causing confusion, disruption, and malcontent amongst the Demo- 
cratic Presidential primary candidates. 

After participating in some of the aforementioned activities either 
by myself or with Mr. Segretti — alias Donald Simmons — I was to be 
paid $700 monthly for activities to take place just before, during, and 
after the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach. No prov(?- 
cations, illegalities, or dirty pranks were carried out that summer 
because of the Watergate break-in and the heat of the investigations 
that followed. My varied political ventures relating to these activi- 
ties took place, therefore, sometime between December 1971 to about 
April or May 1972, or a period of approximately 6 months. 

I have provided this committee with a verbal report on all that I 
can recall that was done for Mr. Segretti, with Mr. Segretti, or on my 
own volition. I very deeply regret the political and pereonal damage 
incurred by the Senators, their families and staff membere while run- 
ning for higher office, as a result of my activities. 

It's my hope that young people will continue to enter politics in 
high school and college. "\Yliat political future I may have had has 
been virtually wiped out by what I did and was involved in. Those 
who live by the sword die by the sword, and I feel that these hearings 
can serve no better function than to exemplify the necessity of keeping 
our political system free of the things that can make politics corrupt 
and eventually ineffective. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Kelly, how long have you lived in Miami ? 

Mr. Kelly. I have lived in Miami about 10 of the last 11 years, 

Mr. Lenzner. How are you presently employed, sir? 

Mr. Kelly. Right now I am employed with my father. We are 
starting a business in Florida. 


Mr. Lenzner. Now, did that call you referred to from Mr. Sim- 
mons come in the fall of 1971 ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, it did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you tell the committee what the substance of the 
phone call was? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Segretti called identifying himself as Donald Simmons, saying 
he Avas referred — he had been referred to me by a Mr. Smith whom I 
did not know or didn't know what he was talking about. He said he 
wanted to meet with me, have lunch, and discuss some possibility of 
my helping him in something political, I wasn't sure what. He asked 
me who my choice for President was and I told him I was for Nixon. 

Mr. Lenzner. Shortly after that did you meet with him and can 
you relate that conversation ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It didn't take much time. I suppose the lunch 
was 45 minutes, an hour, something of that sort. We discussed my 
background, my political background, and he asked me what I thought 
about negative campaigning, was the way he put it. I expressed inter- 
est in it unfortunately, and when I asked him about his background he 
was pretty evasive, he only mentioned that he was a gradute of Yale, 
he was 29, that he was from a very wealthy family that was interested 
in getting involved in the election. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he explain what "negative campaigning" was or 
did you have some idea of that ? 

]\ir. Kelly. Well, I had a pretty good idea of what it was, I didn't 
of course understand the scope of what he meant but I certainly knew 
what positive campaigning was and I had seen some negative cam- 
paigning in previous campaigns to a much lesser degree but I had a 
pretty good idea of what he meant. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you agree to work for "Mr. Simmons," as you 
thought his name to be, at that time ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. In a way it wasn't like you were hired that 
particular time. He said he would get back in touch with me in a 
week or 10 days. He gave me some money, I don't remember the 
exact amount, $40, $50, $60, something of that sort and he recontacted 
me by phone about a week or 10 days later. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you arrive at an agreement for compensation for 
your work ? 

Mr. Kelly. Pardon ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you arrive at an agreement for compensation for 
your work ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

One hundred and fifty dollars, I was to be paid initialh^ for the first 
few months, and then he said we will work something out later as to 

Mr. Lenzner. And did he specify a figure for your work to be done 

Mr. Kelly. Well, not at that time; no. I^ater the figure was set 
at $700. It was to start about June, April — about May or June — was to 
run before the convention, during the convention, and also for some 
postconvention activity. J^j the convention I mean the Democrat con- 
vention in Miami Beach which I think was held in July. 


Mr. Lenzner. Now, prior to Mr. Simmons calling and being with 
you, did you know an individual by the name of Harry Devant ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

I had met Mr. Devant in young Republican politics. He was local, he 
was also in Miami. I knew in 1968 he had been an advance man for 
President Nixon's campaign, and I knew him socially mostly, or 
sometime in 1971, 1 can't place the exact time or date, but it was 1971, 
I think that he began getting involved in young Republican politics 
which I was also involved in. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, a short time ago, you had a conversation with 
Mr. Devant concerning Mr. Segretti, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It was never clear to me even from the con- 
versation with Mr. Devant that he was the one who had referred Mr. 
Segretti to me or had given him my name. I was suspicious of that 
fact. He mentioned that Segretti had contacted him and asked him, to 
paraphrase, "For somebody who had guts," and apparently he gave 
him my name. 

Mr. Lenzner. How long did you work for Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I was first contacted by him, in, I believe, October, 
I think it was October but my activities really didn't start until about 
December, and they ran mostly until the primary which I believe was 
March 14 in Florida. I did participate with him in some activities 
after that as late as April or May. But I suppose the entire time I 
was involved with Mr. Segretti in political sabotage, if you will, would 
be about 6 months. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, during that period of time you had telephonic 
and inperson contact with him, did you discuss with Mr. Segretti his 
strategy for the Democratic primary in Florida ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

We discussed what we thought were the strategies, what we wanted 
to do. The idea was that everybody knew Wallace was going to take 
the State but given that fact, second was as good as first really for the 
rest of the candidates. It would not have been a defeat if Senator 
Muskie had come in second in Florida because everybody expected 
Wallace to take the State. What we wanted was to have Senator Mus- 
kie to come in fourth, fifth, or worse because this would derail his 
bandwagon, so to speak, while coming in second would not. And the 
idea was to not only just confuse the campaigns of the candidates but 
to cause divisiveness, to make it difficult for them to unite after the 
convention, and some of the things we have done, which I will go 
into later, you will be able to see that clearly. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, was there also discussion about Senator Mus- 
kie and his personality with Mr, Segretti ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

He mentioned to me that Senator Muskie had a short fuse, and 
that if enough pressure, week by week, was put on him and enough 
things went wrong he would be more apt to blow that fuse. 

Mr, Lenzner. By the ay, could you explain to the committee how 
you communicated telepnonically "with Mr. Segretti initially ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, initially, he called me, he called me station-to- 
station, I was living at the time with my parents, we moved to Fort 
Lauderdale during that time initially when he was contacting me. 
He also called by phone from California, station-to-station. It was 
never a person-to-person call. 


Mr. Lej^zner. Did you use your real name in talking with Mr. 
Segretti ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. On the phone ? 

Did there come a time later when you started calling Mr. Segretti 
and you did not use your name ? 

Mr. Kelly. Exactly. 

After several months he gave me a number of an answering service, 
somewhere in the Midwest, Cook & Associates or something to that 
effect. I would call, if I needed to get in touch with him and leave 
the name "Mr. Douglas" and he would call me back. Usually we had 
a time, a set time. He would call me every 2 weeks on a Monday at 
12 o''clock or something of this sort but if something came up that 
we had to communicate before that, or I did — I was to call this number 
and he would get back in touch with me. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you and Mr. Segretti 
began to place false advertisements ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Those were in newspaper-s and on the radio, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe the substance of those advertise- 
ments ? What they were aimed at ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, they were advertisements placed in the university 
newspaper, University of Miami campus newspaper, I think one was 
read yesterday, a want ad, there was also another one in there. There 
was a Cuban newspaper, local one, in Miami that an ad was placed, 
alluding to Senator Muskie saying that we should start recognizing 
Cuba, start trying to cooperate and work with them, and I think it 
ended by him saying, "I was bom in Maine and I am a good Ameri- 
can" which, of course, was meant to insult Cubans that read it. A 
similar ad was put on the radio of the same type of copy, it was done 
on the Cuban radio station. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it those advertisements focused primarily on 
Senator Muskie, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kelly. Totally, yes, sir. 

They were not signed by an individual but they had a tag on it 
referring to the Senator Muskie reelection — Senator Muskie for Presi- 
dent Committee. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you also distribute with Mr. Segretti litera- 
ture on a number of occasions ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe briefly the nature of the literature 
you were distributing? 

Mr, Kelly. Some of the literature were posters that we put up that 
were shown yesterday, the busing posters, he and I put so many of 
those up in Miami. There was literature distributed for a bogus lunch 
that was held in Senator Muskie's behalf at his campaign headquarters. 
These were passed out, telling them to bring the in^^tation with them, 
thev would get a free lunch and liquor and get to meet Senator Muskie 
and his wife, and we also had literature passed out on campus, some 
passed out on Miami Beach, some at picnics, a couple at his rally. 

Mr. Lenzner. On that invitation to a free lunch, did you take any 
further action after passing out those pamphlets ? 


Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, which is really the strateg^y of what we were 
doino;, which is kind of illustrative. The morning the hmch was to 
take place, of course, Muskie headquarters people did not know about 
it. I think we had passed these out 1 or 2 days before. I called that 
morning representing myself as a distraught Lindsay supporter and 
mentioned that I wanted to be anonymous but something had taken 
place I was very upset about, that had been done by someone from 
Lindsay's camp and that they should be expecting some lunch crashers 
very shortly. The evening before — then I gave him the address of the 
local Lindsay headquarters where you go down and check it out. 

Mr. Lenzner. That call was to Senator Muskie's headquarters, is 
that right? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. The evening before I had taken some of the invita- 
tions and had put them in front of a door of Lindsay headquarters, that 
I gave them the address of, put a rock on it, knowing in the morning 
they would pick them up and bring them inside and when the Muskie 
aides did come to the headquarters they would probably find the in- 
vitations inside the headquarters. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that, I think, demonstrates in your description 
the attempt to divide and leave a residue of some bitterness between 
the camps, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

'WTiich sort of focuses on a misconception that this committee seems 
to have on one of the purposes of what was done. I know there were 
some questions yesterday by Senator Ervin and by Senator Gurney 
about this. These things being done were not done to influence votes, 
necessarily, at all. You send out 50, as bad as they were, I did not have 
anything to do with that letter, the sexual letter, as bad as they were, 
I think they only went to 50 people, you are not going to affect the 
primary by sending 50 letters out. The letters were bad enough, they 
were expected to be brought to the notice of the candidates of who 
sent them and for him to be upset about it and for him to blame 
possibly another candidate running in the Democratic primary. 
The idea was to get the candidates backbiting each other and possibly 
starting doing it to each other outside of our acti^nties. They were 
not necessarily to influence votes. If we could get, sa5^ Senator 
Jackson very, very upset at Senator McGovern for something that was 
done after the convention he might raise half the money he would 
have, speak at half the places he would have in the State, and that 
would have meant a percentage point or even a half percentage point, 
it could have meant the difference in the State during the general 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also, with Mr. Segretti, issue false press 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. And again, for the same strategy. T take it ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you just describe briefly the nature of the releases ; 
what they contained, if you remember them ? 

Mr. Kelly. I do not remember distinctly. I think one referred to 
Senator Humphrey. These were written on Muskie stationery. They 
referred to Senator Muskie's stand or at least claimed vague and 
ambiguous stand, of aid to Israel which, of course, did not go over very 


well in Miami Beach. I cannot recaU exactly what the others — I think 
there were three releases, maybe four that I sent. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that press release contrasted Senator Humphrey's 
position on that issue with Senator Muskie's to make it appear that 
it was a pamphlet or a flier handed out by Senator Muskie? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there also a press release on Senator Muskie that 
he favored busing while he sent his children to private schools ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes — well, I am not sure that was a release, because I 
am not sure it was on Senator Muskie's stationery. 

Mr. Lenzner. That would have been a flier ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 
. Mr. Lenzner. By the way, did you ever get any kind of impression 
or any understanding of how successful this strategy was during the 
primary ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, not specifically. I did not have a reporter or spy 
in any headquarters. I could only perceive that a lot was going on, 
that they were having problems. I had worked in campaigns, been in 
campaign headquarters myself and if a lot of food, all of a sudden 
started arriving, and a lot of phone calls and a lot of people started 
walking in for lunches had been happening, I know I would have been 
upset aoout it, and fake press releases, et cetera. So I only surmised 
that they were having problems. I had no personal knowledge of that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when Mr. Segretti dictated a 
letter to you over the phone ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It was a letter that purportedly said that a 
Congressman from the west coast of Florida had donated his aides 
and some typewriters to Senator Muskie's campaign, which more or 
less mentions that or alludes to the fact that he is using paid Govern- 
ment workers, his staff members, to work for a Presidential candi- 
date. These were sent to — I think one was sent to Jack Anderson, I 
think one was sent to the Boston Globe, one was sent to Kowan and 
Martin — what are their names — Evans and Novak. 

I believe one was sent to Knight newspapers. I cannot recall for 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you send one to Senator Jackson's headquarters 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, just in case the newsmen were not doing their 
job on that. We figured that that would work, that they would cer- 
tainly get back in touch with Senator Muskie and check it out before 
they printed it. Just in case they did not, we sent one to Jackson's 
headquarters, because we knew they would not be too happy about it. 

Mr. Lenzner, Mr. Beck, do you have the documents ? 

If you will look at tab 9 [exhibit No. 205*], I think it is. Does that 
appear to be the letter 'that you just referred to, Mr. Kelly? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that is on Senator Muskie's stationery, is it not? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, Mr. Kelly, did you also on occasion discuss with 
Mr. Segretti the use of a stinkbomb or some kind of chemical to be 
used at political events? 

♦See Book 10, p. 4279. 


Mr. Keli.y. Yes, sir. I have a friend that is a chemist and he came 
up with a concoction. The name is butyl percaptain. 

Mr. Lenzner. Could you give the spelling? 

Mr. Kelly. I think it is b-u-t-y-1 p-e-r-c-a-p-t-a-i-n. 

He guaranteed me that it would make rotten eggs smell like a rose, 
which is horrible, and was. It was very, very bad stuff. It was not 
physically harmful, but was very, very noxious. It was terrible to have 
to sit there and smell it. It would cause great discomfort for anyone 
being near it. 

This was used — Senator Muskie had a picnic scheduled in Miami 
and it was so bad, even inside of a bottle, you could smell it. We had to 
put wax around it and put it in a coke. The way it was used, the cap 
was opened, the coke was dropped, and everybody thought the food 
was bad. So it kind of made the picnic a bad affair. 

He took some of it and used it up in Tampa, from what I understand. 

Mr. Lenzner. And it was used at a picnic in the Miami area? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also conduct other activities on primary day 
in Florida, on March 14 of 1972 ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those to the committee ? 

Mr. Kelly. On primary day, we had the campaign headquarters 
of Senator Muskie — we called, some floral arrangements were brought 
in, some chicken, some pizzas, I think $300 or $400 of liquor. The tele- 
phones, we tried to tie up the telephones by — we knew the sequence, 
or at least the number on his campaign material was 1234, say, the 
last four digits. We just took the last digit and kept adding one num- 
ber to it and calling it until we had one of his phone outlets. We went 
to a phone booth — by "we," I mean I. I went to a phone booth, would 
call the number. When they answered, I would leave it off the hook, 
walk out of the booth and put an out-of-order sign on it. I am not 
sure that worked. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure it did not 
work, because the phones cut off when this happens. At least, I dis- 
covered that a week or so later when I tried it on myself, so I do not 
think it was effective. But we did do that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there one occasion when you went to a press 
conference held by Senator Muskie at a hotel in the Miami area? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe what activities you conducted 

Mr. Kelly. Well, he had a press conference at the Four Ambassa- 
dors Hotel. I went down and asked some Cubans to hold up some 
signs saying, "Muskie, go home," "We Want a Free Cuba." They 
were picketing in front of the press conference, which got some of 
the press attention. 

I also walked into the press conference with a long overcoat and 
dropped two white mice with blue ribbons on their tails saying. 
"Muskie is a Eat Fink." 

I also let a small finch out whidh was flying around the room and 
causing some commotion and sort of made Senator Muskie's press 
conference comical at the time. 

Mr. Lenzner. I did not hear, Mr. Kelly. Did you describe what 
instructions the pickets had ? 


Mr. Kelly. The pickets, I only remember clearly something to the 
effect of "Miiskie, go home," "We want a Free Cuba." In other words, 
showing that the Cubans were unhappy with Senator Muskie, I gave 
them Humphrey buttons to wear. They were all wearing Humpnrey 
buttons, which I tried to stage and one of Senator Muskie's aides came 
up and asked me about it. I told him confidentially that we were really 
working for Senator Jackson. 

Mr. Lexzner. By the way, were you receiving Senator Muskie's 
schedules from Mr. Segretti of hie activities in Florida on occasion? 

Mr. Kelly. I was receiving it orally. I never had a written report 
on it. He would call me and give me sometimes as much as a week's 
notice on activities. We had a ticket, a train stop through the State, 
he referred to it as a whistle-stop tour. I think I had a week's notice 
on that, although I did not do anything on that particular issue. 

Other times, I would have maybe 1 day's notice of a schedule. For 
instance, he may be talking to the staff of a newspaper the next day. 
If this was the case, I would call up in the morning and either cancel 
the appointment or move it up an hour or back an hour, which would 
cause disconcertment amongst the press and the candidate. 

Mr. Lexzner. Now, on one occasion, were you asked by Mr. Segretti 
to come to Washington, D.C. ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. And was tliat to attempt to disrupt Senator Muskie's 
campaigrn dinner here ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. He called me on very short notice, Thursday 
or Friday. I flew up on a Saturday morning. The dinner was to be 
held Monday night at the Washington-Hilton. We tried to organize 
a rally of demonstrators. We printed up some signs, leaflets, saying to 
come demonstrate against the fat cats; a $1,000 reception and a $500-a- 
plate dinner, something of that sort. We made up some signs for the 
demonstrator who never showed. We did that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you call any groups in the Washington area to 
come to that demonstration ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes; we used the underground newspaper, whatever it 
is called. 

Mr. Lenzner. I think it has been referred to here before. I think 
it is tlie Quicksilver Times. 

Mr. Kelly. All right, the Quicksilver Times. 

Tliere is a section in the newspaper that shows all the different 
groups — the Black Panthers, the Gay Liberation Front, you know, 
all the weird different groups they have. 

We called them — different organizations. I do not want to say all 
the weird groups. They had all the organizations listed. 

We called them, contacted them, told them about the rally, when 
it was, when to be there. I think we called some people from the Hare 
Krishna movement. They said they would certainly have their heads 
shaved and have their drums out there ready to go. But they did not 
show up either. 

We contacted perhaps 10 or 12 African diplomats and told them 
that we were speaking in behalf of Muskie. I represented myself as a 
Muskie aide. I called them by phone, invited them to the dinner for 
Monday night, told them to wear their native garb. 


Then we called the limousine services and had a limousine pick each 
one of them up and brin^ them to the Washin^on-Hilton, which was 
regretful, but the result of it was embarrassing^ for Senator Muskie, 
embarrassinor for the diplomats. And, of course, the chauffeurs were 
less than happy about it also. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, when you had the leaflets printed up on that 
occasion, did you try to implicate Senator Humphrey's campaijin in 
that ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes ; we had them printed up at a local — it was a George- 
town print shop. By "we," I mean myself and Mr. Segretti. We set 
the type to it and did it there, had it run off there, acted like it was 
going to be a great big affair. Then we left the address on the bill of the 
Humphrey headquarters in town. Also, I think we left the name of 
George Kennedy, who, I believe, was his northeastern campaign man- 
ager, or something of that sort, figuring that the owner of the printing 
shop would be alarmed and call the authorities to try to give them 
some warning, anyway, and they would check it out and find out who 
ordered or made up the leaflets. And of course, it would check back to 
Humphrey headquarters. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you also talk with Mr. Segretti about activities 
that might be pursued during the Democratic National Convention in 
Miami ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. We didn't go into a lot of detail about it. We were 
supposed to or we were going to set a time aside, maybe in July, to get 
together and go over the details of it. That never happened because 
of the Watergate break-in, or rather the heat of the investigation. We 
discussed getting possible advance lists of the delegate count of the 
delegations for each State at the convention. "VSHien they are calling- 
the delegation chairman, setting up an appointment for the candidate 
to meet the delegation, representing ourselves as from that candidate's 
camp, and, of coui-se, he would not show up, which would get the dele- 
gation unhappy. In that manner we were hoping to probably do that 
with everybody except McGovern because he was the desirable nom- 
inee of the convention as far as we were concerned. 

Also, this has been gone over several times. I am not sure it is actu- 
ally a fact. There was supposed to be a flyover by an airplane trail- 
ing "Pot, Promiscuity," whatever "Peace for McGovern." This was 
ordered in about April or May, maybe June. I think about May. T am 
not even positive if I left some money for it at one of the local skywriter 
firms, whatever they are. I don't recall distinctly if I even left money 
there, but I know I never contacted them again. I never personally 
saw the plane trailing this message. Someone told me they had seen 
a plane with some sort of weird message. I told that to Mr. Segretti 
and apparently he thought it sort of exaggerated itself along the way. 
It may have happened, but I have no personal knowledge of that. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Mr. Kelly, did you rent some hotel rooms at Mr. 
Segretti 's request? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Why were they rented ? 

Mr. Kelly. I put some deposits down on them, I believe in May 
again. The purpose was hazy. He didn't go into detail, mentioned that 
there may be some people coming down, long hairs, hippies, possibly, 
to demonstrate in front of the Doral Hotel. 


Mr. Lenzner. Now, during this period of time, with reference to 
your activities for Mr. Segr^tti, did you obtain in your possession 
certain records that reflected these activities? 

Mr. Kelly. Would you repeat that, please ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you have documents that you used or obtained 
during this period of time that would have reflected your activities for 
Mr. Segretti? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes; I had copies of different fliers, different ideas and 
notes and phone numbers that I did have in my possession. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did you do with those documents? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I destroyed them. This is about September, I sup- 
pose, or October of 1972, when this started coming out in the open. I 
was getting calls from investigators and I was, of course, upset about 
it. I wanted to, frankly, destroy what evidence there was of my involve- 
ment. I just took it out and threw it away. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall which investigative agency was the 
first to contact you ? 

Mr. Kelly. Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Administrative 
Practices — Government — Administrative Practices and Procedures 
Subcommittee, I think is the title, I am not sure. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any record of when you were first con- 
tacted by the FBI or the JJ.S. attorney's office in Florida? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes; I think I was contacted by the FBI's office in 
August. In late August, I was contacted on one occasion. This sub- 
committee contacted me, I believe, about October. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you very much. 

I have no further questions. 

Senator Baker. INIr. Chairman, before you pass the questioning to 
minority counsel, I would like to introduce Mr. Howard Liebengood, 
who will question the witness today, and also to announce, if I may, 
that I am the senior Republican, the ranking Republican on the Pul)- 
lic Works Committee, which is having an executive session at 11 
o'clock. With the chairman and the counnittee's permission, I would 
like to absent myself from the hearings in order to attend that. 

Senator Ervin. Those things are unavoidable. 

I would like to state also at this time that Senatoi- Talmadge is hav- 
ing to attend a very important meeting of the Finance Committee. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Liebengood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kelly, was your involvement in politics prior to your contact 
with Donald Segretti conducted at the collegiate level ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. sir, mostly. 

Mr. Liebengood. Had you ever held a salaried position in any Re- 
publican campaign ? 

Mr. Kelly. Not salaried. I had a position where I had expenses paid 
on several occasions. 

Mr. Liebengood. What position was that? 

Mr. Kelly. That was 1970, I was working for Governor Kirk's re- 
election. In 1968, I was involved in the Students for Nixon on campus 
and some local elections. There was a man running for Congress and 
the State Senate that I was involved in. 

Mr. Liebengood. Were there any political pranks involved in that 
campaign ? 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 


Mr. Kelly. Well, there were political pranks pulled, yes, sir. I don't 
think there has been a campaign ever seen where there haven't been 
some political pranks. Not to this scope, no, but there were some pranks 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Were the pranks, to your experience, pulled by 
both sides of the campaigns ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. By people working for the campaigns? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Were you a student at the time you participated 
in the activities with Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You indicated in your opening statement that you 
were initially paid a modest salary and that you were to be paid $700 
a month ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Is my understanding correct that you were never 
paid $700 a month ? 

Mr. Kelly. I believe I was to start in June with $700 a month. In 
May, I moved into an apartment in Fort Lauderdale and I received 
an advance, I think, of $400 or $500 that was to be taken from — pro- 
rated the next 3 months. I think I was going to receive $500 a month 
for June, July, August. As it turned out, I did not receive anything 
after that time. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you continue with the same modest salary that 
you started with ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Wliat was that salary, $150 a month? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. That was all you received? 

Mr. Kelly. No; I received money for expenses. That was salary. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Now, when Mr. Segretti contacted you with regard 
to negative campaigning, you indicated that you expressed some in- 
terest in that when he said it. Did you liave any hesitation at all about 
participating in these activities ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, if you are talking about the initial contact. No. 1, 
I wasn't exactly aware what his activities were going to be. 

No. 2, I did have some misgivings about taking part in it. I wasn't 
sure what I was getting into. It was more of a gradual thing. I guess 
I just kept digging a bigger and bigger hole for myself. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do I understand correctly that you did this of yoiir 
own volition ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Mr. Segretti did not persuade you with political 
favors, offer any political favors or anything like that? 

Mr. Kelly. No ; he did not. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. At any time? 

Mr. Kelly. No ; he did not. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did Mr. Segretti ever tell you that he was em- 
ployed by the CRP, the Republican National Committee, or working 
for anybody in authority ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. Although I knew, I didn't believe that he came 
from a wealthy family, whenever I asked him who he was working 


for, who he was working with, where he was getting his money, he 
replied, I don't know, which of course, he was putting me off. He 
said after the election, we would sit down and have a nice cold beer, 
he would tell me the whole situation, maybe meet the boys, is the way 
he put it. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Now, this variety of political pranks that were 
pulled, were these all Mr. Segretti's ideas ? 

Mr. Kelly. No. Some of them were mine. A minority of the 
amount — several of them, I will put it that way — were my ideas. But 
mostly I was working on his direction. There were some things that 
were done that I did on my own, that! thought of and did. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you know how much thought or planning 
went into the preparation of these ideas ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, that varied. ITsually. there wasn't a lot of prep- 
aration. Often, we would think up something over the phone. Or on 
the occasions I met with him in Miami, we would talk about them, 
come up with something, maybe do it the next week or the next day 
or something. There was never a schedule— that 5 weeks or 3 days 
from now, we would do this, or in 6 weeks, we would do this. 

I want to contradict one thing. I do believe we had a schedule, but 
we never followed it. It was very general. The calendar we made up 
was useless. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I understand there was one instance testified to 
yesterday by Mr. Segretti and alluded to this morning, where the 
source of the materials you distributed did not originate with you or 
Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, there was an occasion of that. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I am referring to the flier regarding Senator 
McGovern's "real record on the war." 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Ostensibly prepared by Students for Honesty in 
Government. Would you describe in some detail, how you came into 
possession of that document ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. The University of Miami is where I got the 
document. The Democratic organization on campus was divided into 
several groups that were for different candidates — Democratic Presi- 
dential candidates. The group that had the ]\Iuskie table set up had 
this information on the table. That is where I got it from. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. And the Students for Honesty in Government, 
was that a name that you put on the pamphlet, or was that a name that 
was on there ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. That was a name that was on there. My guess is 
that the Muskie organization didn't want to have their tag on it, but 
nevertheless, it was on their table. It may not have been printed by 
them, but they were distributing it. It more or less went into con- 
tradictions of Senator McGovern's voting record and what he had 
been saying, as I recall. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you ever take part in infiltrating any 
campaign ? 

Mr. Kelly. No. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you ever take part in any act of violence in 
the campaign ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 


Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you know whether or not any of your politi- 
cal pranks that you have described resulted in violence ? 

Mr. Kelly. Not in violence, no. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You testified this morning that on March 14, the 
day of the Florida primary, you sent pizzas and flowers to 
headquarters ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr, LiEBENGOOD. Previously you had used stinkbombs? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you seriously think that any of these activities 
had any impact on the outcome of the Florida primary? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. In what way ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, on the Florida primary itself, possibly not. It cer- 
tainly had an effect on the candidate. It certainly did not help Senator 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. My understanding is that it was not your intent or 
purpose to influence the public vote by your activities? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. But rather to create agitation among the respec- 
tive Democratic candidates, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. Indirectly, this could be attributed to hav- 
ing some effect on the vote, very slightly, only the fact if the candidate 
gets irritated, it gets him to become less than casual before a group, 
and I Avas referring to in New Hampshire where Senator Muskie was 
crying in the Boston Globe. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Tliere is also an indication that you promoted cer- 
tain demonstrations. Is it your impression that these, demonstrations 
also had some effect on the vote as well as agitate the candidate, not 
necessarily your demonstrations but demonstrations in general? 

Mr. Kelly. I am not convinced they liad a direct effect on the vote 
so far as the demonstrations are concerned. They are kind of common- 
place now, especially during Presidential election times. But the pur- 
pose of it was, if Senator Muskie or another candidate was speaking 
somewhere, signs would be placed in a position where the press could 
pick them up, it reduces more or less the pedestal effect of the candidate 
standing there by himself without any indication of other candi- 
dates around. "Wlien you have posters around of the other candidates, 
he looks more like one of them, it is sort of a psychological thine;. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. "VVliat were your misgivings at the time you took 
part in these activities ? 

Mr. Kelly. My misgivings? Well, it would be nice to say I was re- 
gretting it. I was not jumping for joy about it. I am not sure I real- 
ized exactly what I was doing when I was doing it. especially when the 
investigating started. I was scared more than anything else, and after 
that. whv. I practically became immune to the pressure of the investi- 
gatoi-s, the press calling constantly. I had more time to reflect about 
this, what the heck I was doinc:, and I really cannot sav that at the 
time I regretted it. Otherwise, I imagine I would not have been doin<r 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. At the time you were conducting these acti\nties, 
did you feel you were participating in a type of activity that was part 
and parcel of the American political system ? 


Mr. Kelly. No. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You did not feel that way then ? 

Mr. Kelly. I did not feel that it was part and parcel of the Ameri- 
can system. No. I realized what I was involved in was of a much deeper 
scope for lack of a better tenn, "sabotage," than possibly had been done 
earlier, I had no personal knowledge of that, but I can only say from 
what I had seen in other campaigns and previous activities I had taken 
part in that the pranks and the silly things that are done were not to 
this, were not of this scope. That is the only way I can really place it. 
I cannot put it in that category. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I trust you feel the same way today if not more so. 
There is no place in the system for this tj^pe activity ? 

Mr. Kelly. Absolutely not. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Tliauk you, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. Kelly, in Washington this morning I cannot 
help but get the impression that you are rather pleased and proud at 
your apparent success in political sabotage. Am I correct in that, sir? 

Mr. Kelly. Your conclusion is very ridiculous. Possibly I am giving 
a demeanor of confidence, or probably I act like I am happy with it; 
that is not the case. I very much regret it. I feel — the damage, the per- 
sonal damage and the mental misgivings are secondary to the guilt I 
feel for the Senators and people whom I have hurt personally. 

Senator Inouye. When did you begin to feel this regret, sir? 

Mr. Kelly. I began feeling the regrets w^ien I started realizing, not 
necessarily Avhen I was caught or was brought into it, I started feeling 
this, I suppose about the time I stopped doing it, August, September, 
Octobei", November. It was something that when I had time to^ — when 
I was not doing it I had time to stop and think about it a little bit. I 
attributed it to being politically immature, I guess I envisioned too 
manv things, too much of it bad ; I guess I was overly ambitious and 
frankly, I was expecting to have hiirh contact, I was not sure exactly 
who I was working with, but I had an idea it was maybe the T^Hiite 
House or the reelection committee and my ideas of short-term suc- 
cess I am afraid, were very unfortunate. If we had gotten away with 
it. Senator, and we had not been caught I assure you, Senator, I would 
feel at least as guilty. 

Senator Inoitye. I gather from your responses this morning that you 
were not aware of Mr. Segretti's real identity until after the election? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. I did not find out what his real identity was 
until I read it in the newspaper. 

Senator Inouye. And yet you were willing to follow his advice and 
involve youreelf in criminal activity from someone unknown to you? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, he was not necessarily using me. I kind of felt of 
myself — as possibly not mavbe a tool of using me. I was thinking of 
after the election maybe a iob in Washington. I am not rationalizing 
any of my actions at all. You know, any shame or abuse that can be 
heaped on me is certainly well desei-ved but it is not something that is 
going to make any difference. I feel as guilty now as I did 2 weeks after 
or I will 2 weeks from now. 

Senator Inouye. Were you ever concerned about the legality of your 
activities ? 


Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. And still you persisted ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It began witli pranks, it started getting more 
and more intense. I was aware that some of the things I was doing 
were not legal. I would be lying if I told you otherwise, I knew some 
of them were illegal. I kind of just — it was just like I was weaving my 
own spiderweb, I could not get out of it. I was in a hole too deep. It 
is easy now for me to look back and say, "Gosh, why didn't I just say 
forget it, don't bother me any more,'" but as I said earlier, I can only 
attribute it to being immature, to being overly ambitious, and I have 
asked myself a thousand times why did I do it. 

Senator Inouye. As a once promising young political leader, looking 
back in retrospect, I would like to list several of your activities and 
if you would be so kind as to tell this committee whether you con- 
sidered these activities unethical, immoral or illegal. False advertising. 

Mr. Kelly. Illegal. Unethical. You can say all three of them to that. 

Senator Inouye. Distribution of misleading literature without iden- 
tifying the source. 

Mr. Kelly. Or identifying an incorrect source you could add, I 
would say all three again. 

Senator Inouye. Fake invitations to nonexisting events. 

Mr. Kelly. The same. 

Senator Inouye. Fake press releases. 

Mr. Kelly. The same. 

Senator Inouye. False and untrue letters designed to injure the 
candidate of the opposition party. 

Mr. Kelly. The same. 

Senator Inouye. Stinkbombs. 

Mr. Kelly. Foolish, the same thing. 

Senator Inouye. Forcibly entering into a headquarters. 

Mr. Kelly. I did not do that. 

Mr. Beck. Senator, what are you referring to in that regard? 

Senator Inouye. Mr. Segretti suggested that they forcibly opened a 
window to drop a stinkbomb. 

Mr. Kelly. I did not do that. 

Mr. Reck. I do not believe Mr. Kelly was involved in that at all. 

Senator Inouye. I am sorry. Ordering material supplies, food, bever- 
ages, limousines in behalf of an opposition candidate Avith no intention 
to pay for this. 

Mr. Kelly. The same. 

Senator Inouye. Inviting ambassadors of foreign countries. 

Mr. Kelly. The same. 

Senator Inouye. Do you believe there is something inherently wrong 
in engaging in activities for which the real perpetrator seeks to avoid 
responsibility ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Senator Inoi^ye. Is there something Avrong which interferes with 
each party not being able to select freely their best candidates? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir ; I believe that is true. 

Senator Inouit:. Is it now your conclusion that the people of Florida 
were not given the right to freely select their best candidates? 

Mr. Kelly. I think that is kind of a sweeping generality to say 
that most people were not because of my activities. I think most people 


were very much unaware of the activities that were taking place. The 
candidates themselves were; there were not that many votes affected. 
However, I agree with yon that even if one person was affected by 
it adversely, that it was wrong. They should have had a free choice 
of decision. 

Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Gumey. 

Senator Gurney. Mr. Kelly, let's go to this distribution of literature 
which you made. I know here in the witness summary item 2 is distri- 
bution of misleading literature. Would you give us an idea of how 
much literature you distributed down in Florida ? State some examples. 

Mr. Kelly. OK. 

Senator Gurney. What I am trying to find out is whether this — I 
don't know how to characterize this operation. I think I used the 
word "rinky-dink" yesterday and I think that is really what it was. 
"Wliat I am trying to find out is, really, did it have any effect upon 
this election. So wliat kind of distribution did you make? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, Senator Gumey, before I answer that specific 
question, I want you to understand that the literature that was dis- 
tributed wasn't necessarily distributed to influence the amount of votes 
in an election. The person receiving it wasn't — even if 50 of these 
were passed out, 50 are not going to affect the election. 

Senator Gurney. I agree. 

Mr. Kelly. What we were doing was that we were expecting at least 
1 of those 50 to be enraged enough to show that to the candidate — 
for the candidate to become upset about it. If it was blamed on an- 
other candidate in the primary election to cause, discord, malcontent, 
and it wasn't necessarily a direct effect on the vote; it was the effect 
on the candidate that we were interested in. 

Senator Gurney. I might comment on that. I think every one of 
the 100 Senators who serve in the Ignited States has had all kinds of 
dirty tricks played on him in the course of political campaigns and 
we expect it. I am not so sure how much it upsets us. I could give you 
examples in my own campaign, that are far more horrendous than 
some of these here, that worked against me — that you don't really pay 
much attention to it because you expect some of these things. 

But anyway, how much distribution did you make and, incidentally, 
I am not minimizing this dirty-trick business. I loathe it, but it is a 
part, of politics, and it is a part of both sides of politics, all of us in 
politics know and expect some of these things by some of the frinare 
elements. I hope our deliberations here perhaps will produce legis- 
lation and laws that will be better al^le to control this. But back again ; 
what about the distribution now? Give us some examples of how^ 
widespread you distributed some of these things. 

Mr. Kelly. All right; I will give you some examples. At the Uni- 
versity of Miami, there was a flier put out around campus, former Sec- 
retary of the Interior Udall was supposed to speak in behalf of, I be- 
lieve, the Young Democrats on campus. They decided to cancel his 
engagement there because they felt he was, maybe, less than an effec- 
tive speaker. We found out about it. We put up fliers all over campus 
announcing the time and place they had previously set and canceled 
Secretary Udall 's speech, so they had to put him back on the schedule, 


I understand, and also from what I understand, it didn't go over very 
well — ^the speech. 

Senator: Gurney. Who was he speaking for ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was being hosted by the Young Democrats, speaking 
to tlie student body. 

Senator GuRisrEY. I mean, was he peaking jh behalf of one. of the 
candidates ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir; I believe he was speaking in behalf of Senator 

Senator Gurney. So in this event you might have helped Senator 
Muskie by making sure that Secretary Udall appeared, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, if I am to believe the reports from Muskie's staff, 
he was not that effective a speaker, and I am not sure. 

Senator Gurney. Give us some other examples. 

Mr. Kelly. There were some leaflets passed out in Miami Beach 
that were — I am not completely clear on it; I think they were sup- 
posedly to be from Lindsay knocking Muskie's stance or Humphrey's, 
I am not sure which, on his stance for Israel — how he feels that Israel 
should be treated the same way as Cuba, our relations with Cuba. 
These were passed out and put under the windshield wipers of cars 
parked at the synagogues. 

Senator Gurney. How many ? 

Mr. Kelly. Maybe 100 or 200. These were fliers — excuse me. 

Senator Gurney. Do you think this had much effect on the election ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, again, sir, I can't, of course, put a statistic on what 
it did in terms of votes. I am sure it is very small. But again I refer 
that the purpose was not to affect votes in the Florida primary. It was 
to cause malcontent, discomfort among the candidates, to get them 
backbiting and to feel that they were sabotaging each other. 

Senator Gurney. I noticed you mentioned that some of your work, 
you thought, may have hurt Senator Muskie ; but I see here one of the 
fake press releases said that Hubert Humphrey had not supported his 
military assistance for Israel as Senator Muskie. Now I know some- 
thing about Florida politics ; if that went out, that would do nothing 
except help Senator Muskie vis-a-vis Senator Humphrey, because that 
was the one big issue, of course, among the Jewish population in Dade 
County, which is as well today. 

Mr. Kelly. I can't recall exactly what you mean by that. I can 
assure you if we put it out it was not for the benefit of Senator Muskie. 

Senator Gurney. I see there is one notation here that you helped 
distribute the reprint of a Newsweek article about Mrs. Muskie. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. I won't go into the article ; it is here in the exhibits ; 
but I will summarize it by saying it was a pretty good hatchet job on 
Mrs. Muskie, wasnt it? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, and it was written by Newsweek. 

Senator Gurney. How many of those did you put out? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, they were reprinted — they were passed out, I 
believe, at Senator Muskie's picnic he had there, the same which we 
had the stinkbomb, for lack of a better phrase. 

Senator Gurney. How many would you say ? 

Mr. Kelly. A couple of hundred. 

Senator Gurney. Well, I might point out that Newsweek, which is 
owned by the Washington Post, has a circuation of 2,725,000. I think 


they probably did a much better job than you did — doing a hatchet job 
on Mrs. Muskie. 

Mr. KJELLY. Well, that would have been worked in tandem, as a com- 
plementary thing to what we were doing. 

Senator Gtjrney. I must say I read it and I don't think much of it 
either. I don't know why they printed it. 

You worked in Florida exclusively, except for the trip to Washing- 
ton ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Did any people work with you ? 

Mr. Kelly. All the people that I would hire ; I refrained from using 
friends or political associates for the reason that I wasn't overly proud 
of what I was doing even though I did not quit ; I wanted to keep it a 
secret; my parents didn't even know about it and I was living at home. 
If I was to be caught, they would be dragged into it also. 

Senator Gurney. How many were engaged in your operation ; how 
many people did you hire to help you ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I never had full time. At different times, I would 
say, 20. 

Senator Gurney. These were the people, I suppose, who handed out 
leaflets and things like that ? 

Mr. Kell.y. Yes, sir. I would say between 20 and 30. 

Senator Gurney. You are familiar, probably, with the political cam- 
paign, as a whole, in Florida, are you not? I mean you had some idea 
of what went on because of your interest in politics? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Isn't it true that there were thousands of young 
people in Florida on the Republican side and also on the Democrat 
side, for that matter, who were working hard in legitimate ways for 
the reelection of President Nixon and also the candidacy of Senator 
McGovern ? Isn't that a fact ? 

Mr. Kelly. There were indeed, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you very much. 

Senator Ervin. You say that you didn't intend to influence votes? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, if that happened also, we didn't try to stop it. If 
some votes were influenced, that is fine, too ; but that wasn't the main 

Senator Ervin. Now the truth is that Mr. Segretti told you that the 
j>olls showed that Senator Muskie was running ahead of President 
Kennedy, didn't he ? 

Mr. Kelly. President Kennedy ? 

Senator Ervin. I mean President Nixon. 

Mr. Kelly. I don't believe so ; no. 

Senator Ervin. Well, he told you that the polls showed that Muskie 
was the Democrat who had the best chance to beat President Nixon. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And, therefore, it was the policy of those in charge 
of the campaign to try to knock out Muskie as the candidate? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

And there is a presumption of law and a presumption of common- 
sense and a presumption of logic that a man is presumed to intend the 
natural consequence of his acts. 

You put in a radio advertisement on the Miami radio? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 


Senator Ervin. What size city is Miami ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, the city itself, I suppose, has a million people. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

And thousands and thousands of them are Cubans, are of Cuban 
ancestry, aren't they ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And many of those Cubans had become naturalized 
American citizens who were elio;ible to vote in the primary? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. How often did you run this radio advertisement in 
which you stated that Muskie was in favor of Castro ? 

Mr. Kelly. I think it was run one or two times. 

Senator Ervin. And you can't tell us hoAv many of the hundreds of 
thousands of people, a million people, in the Miami area heard that, 
can you ? 

Mr. Kelly. How many Cubans did you say ? 

Senator Ervin. No, people. 

Mr. KeI;LY. People. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Keli,y. Not many outside of the Cubans because it is a Spanish 
radio station. 

Senator Ervin. Well, Castro and Cuban communism was one of the 
most unpopular men and one of the most unpopular issues in Florida, 
wasn't it? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you tell me you didn't intend to influence any 
Cubans, voting Cubans, or their sympathizers in having this radio 
broadcast the false statement that Muskie was in favor of recognizing 
Castro and Communist Cuba ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I didn't say that. I said that wasn't the main 
purpose. I said, yes, that is fine; and I said an overwhelming majority 
of Cubans are not Democrats. They could not vote in the Democratic 
primary. I would say about 80 percent are Republicans so it wasn't 
necessarily to influence votes in the Democratic primary. It was to get 
the Cubans upset at Muskie. 

Senator Ervin. I have found out in many States that many people 
register in the name of a party. Have you ever examined the registra- 
tion books to show how many thousands of Cubans were registered to 
vote in the Democratic primary ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. How many? 

Mr. Kelly. I believe in the Democratic primary — let me see if I can 
put the exact number on it — I think it was 14,000 ; I am not exactly 
sure. I think 25,000 or 30.000 Republicans. 

Senator Ervin. All of them have sympathizers, don't they ? 

Mr. Kelly. Have sympathizers? 

Senator Ervin. Yes; people who sympathize with their plight and 
strongly opposed to the recognition of Castro. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. Well, that is what you did for the Cubans. 

Now, you know that there has been a great deal of controversy, and 
one of the most sensitive issues in the State of Florida for several 


years has been the involuntary busing of schoolchildren to integrate 
schools ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you knew that a large part of the white popu- 
lation of Florida was opposed to busing? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. So you falsely pictured that Muskie wanted to have 
more busing instead of less, didn't you ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And don't you think that that had a natural tend- 
ency to aifect Muskie's chances among people who were opposed to 
busing ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, it certainly didn't help his chances, but I would 
venture to say the other Democrats running didn't have much of a 
different stance, except for Wallace. 

Senator Ervin. But you didn't advertise them, did you, unpleas- 
antly — just Muskie? 

Mr. Kelly. I think we did. I think Senator McGovern in another 
part of the State was advertised for doing that. 

Senator Ervin. That is what you did for the white population. 

Mr. Kelly. OK. 

Senator Ervin. Then Miami has a tremendous Jewish population, 
doesn't it? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. One of the largest Jewish populations of any city in 
this country, doesn't it ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you put advertisements in the newspapers in 
Miami tliat — or rather you distributed what you called a yellow flag 
under the false pretense it had been written by another Democratic 
candidate, Lindsay, in which he charged that Muskie was opposed 
to the aims of Israel, didn't you ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervtn. So we have from your own admission that you 
were aiming at Cuban voters, you were aiming at the white voters, 
you were aiming at the Jewish voters to influence them against INIuskie, 

Now, you also engaged in lying advertisements to influence the 
black vote, didn't you ? 

Mr. Kelly. "Wliat was that again, sir? 

Senator Ervin. You also entered into — you made advertisements to 
influence the black vote in Florida, which is considerable, isn't it? 

Mr. Kelly. I am not sure exactly. 

Senator Er\t[n. Didn't you distribute as far as you could, and you 
had the assistance of 20 other people doing it, the statement that 
Muskie thought the time had not come to have a black candidate for 
vice president? 

Mr. Kelly [conferring with counsel]. I think that was in Tampa. 

INIr. Beck. Senator, I think you are confusing Mr. Benz' activities 
with Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Kelly. That may have been done, I may have done that, I don't 
recall it. 

Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Benz was operating in conjunction with 
you and Mr. Segretti, wasn't he ? 


Mr. Keixy. Unbeknownst to me ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Yes; and then you o:ot after the liberals, to influ- 
ence them against Muskie by stimulating; this document [exhibit No. 
158*] which has been oifered in evidence called Citizens for a Liberal 

Mr. Kelly. I don't — I am not positive that I was involved with 
that either. That is vei-y unclear. I think I mentioned to Mr. 

Senator Ervin. Well, are you positive or not? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I am not positive. 

Senator Ervin. A synopsis made by the staff allefjedly on the basis 
of your information to them states, as I understand it, that you did 
distribute that document. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Senator, we went over that last nijrht and Mr. Kelly 
was not suT-e that he — T think the document was familiar to him but 
he couldn't recall whether he had distributed that document or not. 

Senator Ervin. Then you tried to appeal to the conservative, staid 
people of Florida to be ai<i;ainst Muskie by hiring a naked woman to 
run in front of his headquarters yelling;, "I love Muskie," didn't you? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, that is true. 

Senator Ervin. Well, I have heard a lot in this investigation about 
coverup activities and I think that might be one. 

And then you not only made attacks on Muskie but you deliberately 
distributed the hatchet job which Newsweek had done on Muskie. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you still state on your oath that you didn't do 
any of these things for the purpose of influencing votes of anybody ? 

Mr. Kelly. I can easily illustrate that to you again if you would 
like. You are talking about influencing the Jewish vote — we might 
have passed out 50 of them. 

Do you realize how many Jewish votere there are in Miami Beach ? 

You are referring to the Cuban vote, a small percentage of which 
voted in the Democratic primary. As far as the white people on the 
busing issue, I think if you w411 look back, the candidates themselves 
were, especially Wallace, was using that issue for more than we were 
referring to the busing stand. I am not denying some votes may have 
been influenced very directly but. Senator Ervin, the purpose, almost 
the complete purpose, of this was for when you pass out 40 or 50 or 
100 flyers in a Jewish — Miami Beach where there are thousands of 
Jewish voters, you are not intended to sway 50 or 100 or 200 votes, you 
are trying to get that back to the candidates, have them irate about 
it, have the candidate become upset, to take action maybe back to the 
other candidate, do something, but its inherent purpose is to upset the 
candidates and to try to cause divisiveness. 

Senator Ervin. You sure did that, did you not ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. As a result of activities on your ]iavt and others 
in the Florida primary, the front running Democrat, Senator Muskie, 
was knocked out. His candidacy was virtually destroyed, was it not? 

Mr. Kelly. I would not say solely from this. I would certainly say it 

Senator Ervin. Well, you contributed to that. 

*SeeBook 10, p. 4055. 


Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And Mr. Segretti contributed to it and Mr. Benz 
contributed to it ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you received money which came ultimately 
from the President's personal attorney for your activities, did you not ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Now, do you go to college ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir, not now. 

Senator Ervin. Well, have you gone to college ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Did you ever read Shakespeare ? 

Mr. Kelly. Not as thoroughly as some, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, did you ever come to this passage in Shake- 
speare : 

Good name in man and woman, dear Lord, is the immediate juror of their 
souls ; 

Wlio steals my purse steals trash ; 

Tis something, nothing. 

Twas mine. 

Tis his, and has been a slave to thousands. 

But he that filches from me my good name, 

Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes poor indeed. 

Now, do you not think that you engaged in activities which were 
calculated to rob Senator Muskie and Mrs. Muskie and others of their 
good names among the voters of Florida ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

I might add that I am not liere, sir, defending my position. I do not 
have a position to defend. I regret very much what was done. I simply 
tried to ex])lain to you what our purpose was. 

Senator Ervin. And in addition to spreading false statements, mak- 
ing false advertisements, you also disseminated forged press releases 
on tlie letterhead of Muskie's campaign committee? 

Mr. Kelly. I never signed anytliing, but there were attacks, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. But you distributed them ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I never distrilmted anything with a forged 

Senator Ervin. I did not say that. I said a forged paper. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you consider this — I started to say — rises above, 
but I will say descends below the pranks level ? 

Mr. Kelly. I feel that way without a question. 

May T add one thing? I mentioned to Mr. Lenzner that, of course, it 
is easv when you are before a committee or you are interrogated by a 
j>:rand jury to say, "Gosh, I am sorry I did it, I really feel regretful." 
I know vou do not expect someone up here to say, "I did it, great, I 
will do it a<rain." I understand that. You cannot completely convince 
somebody that you do feel guilty or hud about these things. It is 2 
vears ago, but I still feel very bad. I told Mr. Lenzner that I would 
verv much like to. since I have firsthand knowledge, I was participat- 
inpT in these acts, that T would like to write to him, a report of what 
I feel could be done to legislate, to possibly make pranks misdemeanors 
or Dunishable by law. I will do that. 

Senator Ervin. There is another poet that says : 


Tbe moving finger writes, 
And having writ moves on, 
Nor all your piety nor wit, 
Shall lure it back to cancel a single line ; 
Nor all your tears 
Wash out a word of it. 

which I think is very unfortunate. 

But I would like to know why you did it because you knew it was 
wrong. You look like a person who has had a good opportunity in 
life and come from a good home. 

Mr. Kelly. I appreciate that, sir. As to why I did it, I have asked 
myself that question a thousand times. I regret it. It was stupid. As I 
said, I was overly ambitious. I expected temporary success and as I 
said, even if I had — I could not have had a conscience if I did not 
feel guilty. Even if I were sitting up here in a different position. I 
will always look back, realize how I got it, who I was working with. 
If I could continue on under those circumstances, then I would not 
deserve to be on earth. 

Senator Ervin. Well, I will have to pay you the compliment of 
saying that you are entitled to the blessings of the scripture, where it 
says, "Blessed is he who sweareth to his own word and changeth it 
not," You have been very frank with the committee and you are to be 
commended in that. 

Mr. Kelly. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I think that 
Mr. Kelly's statement, that you know that it is easy to say I am sorry 
when you are before a committee or a grand jury — it is not easy. I do 
not think it has been easy for you. And quite frankly, not eveiTbody 
who has appeared before this committee, or those who have not ap- 
peared before this committee, have said, I am sorry. Some of them 
actually have tried to sell it as legitimate or justified by the fact that 
these things were done in the past. I find neither of those attitudes on 
your part and I just want to commend you for your very frank state- 

Mr. Kelly. I appreciate that. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Kelly, would you please go into a little more 
detail as to what motivated you to go into this kind of activitv and 
to do the vers' things that you did and about which you have testified? 

Mr. Kelly, Well, sir, at the outset — if I knew what the scope was 
at the outset, I am sure I would have been frightened away and I 
would not have wanted it to take place. It became more and more 
apparent to me as I worked with Mr. Segretti that he had access to a 
lot of money. I perceived, although he never told me, that he was 
probably working with people in the administration; I guessed the 
"V^Hiite House or the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

My political outlook was. frankly, immatui^o in that I was expecting, 
you know, something for — not nothing in this case, something 
pretty bad. I realized when I first got into it that it was wrong. I was 
not sure that it was going to be the scope that it was. It just got to a 
point where a little bit more was done, and a little bit more was done, 
things that were fringing around the law — pranks; putting other 
candidates' bumper stickers on other candidates' posters that were up, 


instead of tearing them down ; stinkbombs, things of this sort. Some of 
them were frankly comical ; at the time — I thought some of them were 
comical. Some of them I enjoyed. Most of them I did not. 

Senator Montoya. But you realized right along that they were bad ? 

Mr. Keul-y. Yes, sir ; I knew it was a dirty campaign. 

Senator Montoya. And you kept trying to make them worse? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I do not think it was a level, like each one was 
worse than the other. There were different things done at different 
times. I do know that later on, the more illegal things that were done — 
for instance, the Washington-Hilton affair, Senator Muskie s fund- 
raising dinner, that was in April. That was one of the last things that 
was done. I am convinced that I would not have done that in the 
beginning. If I had just come into it, I am sure I would not have done 
it. But it was a gradual thing. I am not sure that if it came to the point 
where he asked me to kill somebody — this is hypothetical — anything 
of that sort, I would do it. I would not have done it. I would never 
have injured anybody. I was not asked to. But it did get to an extreme 
where it was the personal damaging of people and their political career, 

Senator Montoya. I notice that toward the last, you were planning 
on parading a nude woman past Muskie headquarters and she was sup- 
posed to shout, "Muskie, I love you.'" 

Mr. Kelly. Well, that is not exactly the case. TVliat that was, is 
there was a girl that was hungry for money. She needed some money, 
so I told her — I didn't know her. She was going to Gainesville, where 
the University of Florida is. I was told Senator Muskie was there. 
I gave her $20, $10, I don't remember how much, and asked her if I 
gave this to lier if she would be willing to take off her clothes and run 
in front of his hotel, screaming, "I love you" — which she did, un- 

But slie did. 

Senator Montoya. You must have known her very well. 

Mr. Kelly. Again unfortunately, no. 

Senator Montoya. How did you have so much confidence to ask her 
to do this? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, it was more of a money thing as far as she was con- 
cerned. I certainly wouldn't approach somebody off — I shouldn't say 
off the street — off. campus and offer to pay them $20 to strip and run 
in front of somebody's hotel, j^articularly around there. So I was very 
surprised that she would do this. I didn't expect it to happen, but it 
was just something that did happen. 

Senator Montoya. Now, did you also send some letters out to some 
of the lieadquarters without stamps ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Do you know of any of the others who did ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, as far as others are concerned, I knew of no one 
else involved witli Mr. Segretti. I know that I personally would not do 
anything of that sort. 

Senator Montoya. Were you aware of any pranks practiced by the 
Democratic candidates or their people ? 

Mr. Kelly. Nothing out of the ordinary. They were ripping down 
each others signs, which is something that in practically every cam- 
paign that has ever taken place has happened, whether the candidate 
does them or not. 


Senator Montoya. Anything as serious as what you were doing? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Don't you feel that because of what you did, you 
have really lost your dignity and decency as a man ? 
^ Mr. Kelly. No. If I didn't regret it, I* feel I would. I am not ready to 
shoot myself, if that is what you mean. 

Senator Montoya. Do you think that regret restores a man's dignity 
and decency ? 

Mr. Kelly, I think it is a start. 

Senator Montoya. Well, then, you are starting on it. 

Mr. Kelly. Well, sir, I am trying. 

Senator Montoya. Now, did you feel at any time since speaking to 
Mr. Segretti about this, planning and so forth, that you were repre- 
senting either the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the people 
in the White House or both ? 

Mr. Kelly. Did you ask me if I felt that ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir ; I felt that. 

Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Segretti indicate to you in any way 
that you were really working for these people ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir ; he never did. 

Senator Montoya. What made you have this feeling of participa- 
tion with these people ? There must have been some indication. 

Mr. Kelly. Well, the indication was I knew that Mr. Segretti's 
activities were of a wide nature. I knew that he was going to other 
States. He showed me some of the literature that was used in different 
places, that perhaps I would recognize but didn't use myself. I knew 
his expenses must be quite high to l>e flying around the country this 
much. I just couldn't think of any other source, financial source, that 
could possibly be operating at that time. When I would refer to 
whether he was working for the "Wliite House or the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President, he would just say, "I don't know, I will explain 
after the election." 

I did know he had extensive activities, but I was not aware of who 
he was talking with. It was just my feeling. He never gave me an 
indication that that was the case. Plus the fact that I suspected Mr. 
Devant — ^this was never clear, still — I guess it is now — that it was 
Mr, Devant he had been in contact with. I knew he was an advance 
man for President Nixon in 1968, so there was a correlation there. 

Senator Montoya. "When you came to Washington, did you visit the 
White House? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Were you in touch with anyone working at the 
White House? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. During the Washington trip ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. "V^Tio else were you in touch with besides Mr. 
Segretti at that time ? 

Mr. Kelly. Nobody. 

Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Muskie — I mean Senator Gurney. 

Seantor Gurney. Mr. Chairman, now that you have mentioned Sena- 
tor Muskie, I would like to go back and clear up a point a little bit. 


Senator Ervix. I tcl] you, I hove been talking about him so much 
with the witness. 

Senator Gurney. Do you agree, Mr. Kellv, with most political an- 
alysts that perhaps one thing that hurt Senator Muskie more than 
anything else is his emotional outburst in the New Hampshire 
primary ? 

Mr. Kelly. I do. 

Senator Gurney. It is easily understandable why that happened. 
He is a proud and sensitive man as well as a fine Senator. And, of 
course, that was precipitated by the Newsweek article, was it not? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. The New Hampshire primary occurred, did it not. 
before the Florida primary ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. sir. I think there was an article in the Boston Globe 
he was upset about, not simply the Newsweek article. And that 

Senator Gurney. In any event, it did involve a hatchet job on Mrs. 
ISIuskie ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. A very fine, wonderful woman that the Senator has 
every right to be proud of. That is really what precipitated the emo- 
tional outburst in New Hampshire, is that not correct? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney, And this occurred, as I said, before the distribu- 
tion of these few reprints of the Newsweek article you and your people 
made in Miami, Fla., is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. There were activities, understand, going on be- 
fore — I am not sure if anything was done in New Hampshire or not. I 
am not completely sure there was anything done before that at all in 
terms of sabotage. But I would agr-ee with you that it was the attack 
on Mrs. Muskie that brought on his crying. 

Senator Gurney. Do not misunderstand my questions. I in no way 
approve of what you and your people were doing in Florida. I think 
this is a great injustice to the political system that we could do without 
completely, and politics and Government would l>e much farther 
ahead. But I do like to try to bring the true picture and the facts. Do 
you really feel that your activity really had any weight at all in decid- 
ing how people were going to vote in the State of Florida in the Demo- 
cratic primary ? 

Mr. Kelly. Possibly not in the State of Florida. I think it would 
have had some effect as to postconvention attitudes. 

Senator Gurney. I am talking about the Florida primary. 

Mr. Kelly. The Florida primary? 

No, sir; I do not think there was a marked effect as to the direct 

Senator Gurney. That is all. 

Senator Ervtn. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. No questions, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you do not think that the publication of the so- 
called Canuck letter in New Hampshire and the activities of Donald 
Segretti and yourself in Florida were calculated to make Senator 
Muskie or any other man have a sweet disposition, do you ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir ; I certainly would not. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 


Senator ER\^^^ In fact, they were intended to have exactly the op- 
posite effect, were they not? 

Mr. Kfxlt. That was the intention ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Lenzner. 

Mr. Lenzner. Just one or two questions. 

Mr. Kelly, with reference to that New Hampshire incident involv- 
ing Senator Muskie, did you make reference to that in some of the 
literature you handed out? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Could you just describe what that was to the com- 

Mr. Kelly. Yes sir; I believe it was referred to in one of the fliers. 
I think it was the lunch flier, the bo^is lunch that was supposed to be 
held by Senator Muskie. I think it referred, something to the effect, 
come and hear Senator Muskie explain why he broke down in New 
Hampshire. That was included on one of the fliers. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it that you favor legislation in this area, and 

1 would appreciate receiving, as I know the committee would, your 
ideas in this area. Would you also take into consideration when you 
write that, if you could, what the possible impact or effect might be 
if you multiplied your activities throughout the State, with other 
people doing similar things, and multiply those kinds of statewide 
activities in other primary States? If you would also give us your 
judgment on that, I think we would appreciate it. 

Mr, Kelly. I will, thank you, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. That is all. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. My experience in politics has been, and I have been 
in it a long time, that one man can tell a lie about a candidate one day 
and then it is all over the community the next day. So I don't accept 
your theory that because you just put on two radio advertisements 
about INIuskie's attitude toward Castro that the repercussions of that 
stopped when you took the thing off. 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir; to repeat myself, there were, I am sure, some 
effects of that. But that was not the direct purpose. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, it is just like throwing a rock into 
a pond. The waves just keep going until they reach out to the shores. 
Nothing seems to spread as fast as false rumors and false charges. 

Mr. Liebengood. 

Mr. Liebengood. I have no questions, ]Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

[A'SHiereupon, at 11 :50 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 

2 p.m., the same day.] 

Afternoon Session, Thursday, October 4, 1973 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Before the next 
witness is called I will read for the record this memorandum addressed 
to me by Phillip K. Beck, counsel for Martin Douglas Kelly, dated 
October 4, 1973. At Mr. Beck's request. 

The morning session was adjourned before I had an opportunity to state on 
the record my client's and my appre<»iation for the excellent coo]ieration of the 
committee's staff counsel, particularly Mr. Terry Lenzner and Mr. Marc Lackritz. 
They conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion both professionally and as 


gentlemen. This committee is fortunate to liave men of tlieir caliber assisting 
Please enter this into the record. 
Respectfully submitted. 

Phillip K. Beck, 
Counsel for Martin Douglas Kelly. 

Counsel will call the next witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Robert Benz. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Benz, will yon stand np and raise you right 

Do yon solemnly swear that the evidence tliat yon shall oive to 
the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 
shall be the truth, iha, whole trutli, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant chief coun- 
sel, will question the witness. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you. 

Mr. Benz, you are accompanied by counsel. Will counsel identify 
himself, please? 

Mr. McLaughlin. Delbert L. McLaughlin. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, we might note for the record Mr. Benz 
lias been granted immunity ])ursuant to a court order. 

Senator Ervin. Let the record show as a result of the unanimous 
request of the committee. Judge John J. Sirica, chief judge of the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has en- 
tered an order requiring tliis witness to testify and granting him im- 
munity under sections (1002 and 6005 of title 18 of the United States 
Code, so that the testimony of ]Mr. Benz is given pursuant to this 
order of immunity, and he is entitled in subsequent proceedings to 
all of the ])rotections which the order of immunity and the statutes 
involved place around him. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Afr. Chairman. 

Mr. Benz, will you tell the committee your address ? 

testimony of robert m. benz, accompanied by delbert l. 
Mclaughlin, counsel 

Mr. Benz. 14605 North 4-Sd St., apartment ?,0, Lutz, Fla. 

Mr. Lenzner. How are you employed ? 

Afr. Benz. I am a dock superintendent. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, you have had prior political experience, have 
you not, prior to the Presidential election of 1972 ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Could you briefly describe those experiences? You 
were in — I take it vou were manager of a Senate campaign in Florida, 
is that right? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. You are also president of the Young Republican Club 
down there? 

]Mr. Benz. I was. 

]\Ir. Lenzner. Did you receive a phone call from a man who identi- 
fied himself as Donald Simmons in November of 1971 ? 


Mr. Brxz. No, sir. 

Mr. Lenzxek. When was that phone call made ? 

Mr. "Benz. December of 1971. 

Mr. Lenzner. What was it, what did Mr. Simmons say to you ? 

Mr. Benz. He was interested to see if I would be interested in being 
involved in a voter researcli project. 

Mr. Lexzner. Is that all he said ? 

Mr. Benz. And he desired I meet him. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you meet him ? 

Mr. Bexz. Yes, sir. 

iVIr. TjOexzner. Where was that? 

Mr. Bexz. Causeway Inn at Tampa. 

Mr. IvExzxer. And what was your discussion at that time ? 

Mr. Bexz. He first asked me my past experience in different cam- 
paigns, and he then stated that he would be interested in my becoming 
involved in an effort to cause disruption in the Democratic primaries. 

Mr. Lex^zxer. Did he specify anything, any methods or activities 
you might engage in for purposes of disruption ? 

Mr. Bexz. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Can you explain those? 

Mr. Bexz. He was interested for me to obtain hecklers, pickets, 
and also to get people to infiltrate into the campaigns, to gather 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now, the records show, and you told us, that you 
talked telephonically to IMr. Segretti on a number of occasions, a 
person you now know as Segretti, and you also met him in person 
on a number of occasions. 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lexzner. And during those discussions did he further define 
what his and what your strategy was supposed to be with reference 
to the specific Democratic candidates in the Florida primary ? 

Mr. Bexz. Well, the overall strategy w^as to concentrate on Senator 
Humphrey, Senator Muskie, and Senator Jackson, and to just gen- 
erally cause a disruption among these camps. 

Mr. Lexzner. Were you supposed to concentrate your resources on 
any particular candidate ? 

Mr. Benz. At that time it was Senator Muskie. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did you receive any money from ISIr, Segretti? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much was that ? 

Mr. Benz. On what occasion? 

Mr. Lenzner. The first occasion. 

Mr. Benz. $50. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you arrange to receive a regidar salary 
from him? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much was that? 

Mr. Bexz. $150. 

Mr. Lexzx'^er. For how long? 

Mr. Bexz. We did not specify the length of time. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was it a week or a month? 

Mr. Benz. I received that amount on a monthly basis. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you also receive expenses ? 


Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did he also toll yon that he would provide money 
for infiltrators into the Democratic candidates' campai;^is at some 
point ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, after you ao^reed to work for Segretti. did yon 
approach individuals to reciiiit them? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. "Wlio was the first person yon approached ? 

Mr. Benz. Miss Griffin. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can yon g:ive the committee her fii-st name? 

Mr. Benz. Pat, Patricia. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did yon ask her to do ? 

Mr. Benz. To join the Mnskie camp. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did she agree to do so? 

Mr. Benz. Yes; she did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did yon arrange with her to have a story as to why 
she wanted to join the Muskie camp? 

Mr. Benz. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you describe that? 

INIr. Benz. She stated to the Muskie people that she was a Republi- 
can, that she did not care for the President's policies, and that she was 
now a backer of Senator Muskie. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much money did von pay her per month ? 

Mr. Benz. $75. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you next approach somebody with the first 
name Debbie? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. You can't remember her last name ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. "V^Tiat did you ask her to do ? 

Mr. Benz. To infiltrate one of the campaigns. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember which one? 

Mr. Benz. It was either Humphrey or Wallace, I don't recall which. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she agree? 

Mr. Benz. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you did obtain an infiltra- 
tor into Senator Jackson's campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct, 

Mr. Lenzner. Who was that ? 

Mr. Benz. Miss Frohlich. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you spell that please for the committee ? 

Mr. Benz. Probably not correctly. 

Mr. Lenzner. Give it to us as best you can, Mr, Benz. 

Mr. Benz. F-r-o-h-l-i-c-h. 

Mr. Lenzner. What was her first name ? 

Mr. McLaughlin. E-s-e-1-e-n-e, the last I heard someone spell it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you know her through the Young Republican 
activities ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you pay her $50 a month ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did you have a conversation with her about the 
legality of her activities? 

Mr. Benz. I could have. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what you said to her about that? 

Mr. Benz. I don't recall it specifically. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember telling her that you had a lawyer 
for her if there were any problems ? 

Mr. Benz. I remember telling someone that. 

Mr. Lenzner. You don't remember if it was Miss Frohlich ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you tell a number of people that ? 

Mr. Benz. I could have. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also recruit an individual by the name of 
George Hearing? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. He is presently in jail, is that correct? 

Mr. Benz. The last I heard. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Lenzner. And he is in jail on the indictment in Florida on the 
so-called sexual conduct letter, is that correct ? 

Mr. Benz. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wliat are the charges against him ? 

Mr. Benz. For not having a proper identification on a letter. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that is the letter, is it not ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. "What did you recruit him for? 

Mr. Benz. Field activities. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Hearing ask you who you represented when 
you hired him? 

Mr. Benz. He could have, I don't recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. And you told him that you were doing this in behalf 
of President Nixon, do you recall that? 

Mr. Benz. I could have. 

Mr. Lenzner. You don't recall that now ? 

Mr. Benz. I told that to some people. I don't specifically recall if 1 
told that to Mr. Hearing or not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also i-ecniit Ki]) Edwards? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that was also for so-called field activities ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Ajid Gary Yancey also for field activity ? 

Mr. Benz. Just for one event. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also attempt to get people to infiltrate Gov- 
ernor Wallace's campaign on occasion? 

Mr. Benz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now after Miss Griffin infiltrated Senator INfuskie's 
campaign, what kind of information did she pro\ade you ? 

Mr. Benz. Various campaign information, campaign literature, just 
information on a general campaign strategy. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she provide you with stationery from Senator 
Muskie's campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes : she did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she provide vou with the names of the campaign 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; she did. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did she also describe their roles? 

Mr, Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she give you an analysis of their weaknesses and 
strengths ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she also give you the names of precinct captains 
for Senator Muskie ? 

Mr. Benz. She gave me some of the names of precinct captains. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she also provide you with the names of financial 
contributors ? 

Mr. Benz. Some of them. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did slie provide you with schedules of Senator 
Muskie's travel and meetings with private groups ? 

Mr. Benz. She provided, I can specifically recall her providing me 
with some of Senator Muskie's arrangements. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did that include meetings with private groups, to 
your recollection ? 

Mr. Benz. I am sure it was not an extensive report but I am sure — 
I recall her giving me some information. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, Miss Frohlich who infiltrated Senator Jack- 
son's campaign, did she also provide similar information? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was that information sent on to anybody ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. "Wlio did you send it to ? 

Mr. Benz. A post office box that I was given. 

Mr. Lenzner. By wliom ? 

Mr. Benz. Mr. Simmons or Mr. Segretti. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now the information that you were obtaining, were 
you also using that information to conduct your so-called field 
activities ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, shortly after you agreed to work for Mr. Sim- 
mons, did you receive a letter postmarked "California" instructing 
you to do something ? 

Mr. Benz. It could have been postmarked "California." 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what it asked you or instructed 
you to do ? 

Mr. Benz. Basically it was a letter requesting that I acquire pickets 
at any rallies that President Nixon might attend in the area. 

Mr. Lenzner. And were these ralliers supposed to carry signs or 
appear to come from another candidate's camp ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Which candidates were they supposed to represent? 

Mr. Benz. One of the Democratic candidates. 

Mr. Lenzner. Senator Humphrey, Senator Muskie, or Senator 
Jackson ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you obtain any pickets to do that ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, Senator Muskie appeared in Tampa in Jan- 
uary of 1972. Did you conduct any activities with regard to his appear- 
ance at that time ? 


Mr. Bexz. Yes ; we did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those to the committee? 

Mr. Benz. "We released a press release and sent that to, I believe, 
the newsmen, and we also acquired 10 pickets that picketed the hotel. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was that press release based on information you 
received from Miss Griffin ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. AVhat was that information ? 

Mr. Bexz. Basically, it was the information that Senator Muskie 
was usino; Government-owned typewriters provided by a Congressman, 
also that Federal employees were involved in his campaign and not 
on leave of absence. 

Mr. Lexzner. Mr. Benz, are you talking now about the press re- 
lease that you sent out 

Mr. Benz. I am sorry, I am confused. I am soriy. 

Mr. Lenzner. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. You 
did send out a press release referring to a reception and private dinner 
that Senator Muskie was going to have, is that correct? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And you received that infonnation from Miss Griffin, 
is that correct? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. You sent that out, I take it, on Senator Muskie's 
stationery ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

M. Lenzner. To the news media ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. What was the result of that effort ? 

Mr. Benz. I don't recall a specific result. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wasn't the dinner that had been planned canceled 
as a result of that ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, who do you have hire the pickets ? 

Mr. Benz. Mr. Hearing, 

Mr. Lenzner. Did they carry signs? 

Mr. Benz. Yes; they did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe the nature of those ? 

Mr. Benz. They were in reference to Muskie's statement concerning 
a black Vice President would not l)e acceptable. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much were thev paid, if vou rememlier ? 

Mr. Benz. Maybe $100. 

Mr. Lenzner. Lid you instruct Mr. Hearing on what they should 
do if questioned about who they represented ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And what were they told ? 

Mr. Benz. To state that they represented one of the other Demo- 
cratic candidates. 

Mr. Lenzner. Senator Jackson, or Senator Humphrey ? 

Mr. Benz. One of those. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also learn that Senator Jackson Avas to ap- 
pear for the opening of his headquarters in Tampa in January of 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did you take any action with regard to that? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those ? 

Mr. Benz. Tliose Avere the activities where I hired a Mr. Yancey 
and a Mr. Edwards to sit across the street with some signs, something- 
stating to tlie fact tliat "Believe in Muskie"" or "Muskie Countr3\" 

Mr. Lenzner. Were you on the scene that day ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you observe Senator Jackson witli Mr. Yancey 
and Mr. Edwards ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was a photograph taken of tliat? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; there was. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you see it reprinted in newspapers ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was that widel}- circulated, to jour knowledge, 
throughout the country ? 

Mr. Benz. I don't know. 

Mr. Lenzner. It was in the local area ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also observe Mr. Segretti in the area ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did thei'e come a time after that incident when you 
had your field operations conduct a picket at Senator Muskie' train 
stop in Florida ? Campaign train stop ? 

Mr. Benz. Could you repeat the question, please ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you have pickets at Senator Muskie's train stop 
in Florida ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where was that ? 

Mr. Benz. In Winterhaven. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did they carry signs? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; they did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those signs ? 

Mr. Benz. "Wallace countrA'." 

Mr. Lenzner. I am sorry ? 

Mr. Benz. "Wallace country." 

Mr. Lenzner. Who were those pickets? 

Mr. Benz. Mr. Hearing, Mr. Edwards, and a gentleman by the name 
of Duke. 

Mr. Lenzner. And who was this individual named Duke? Did you 
know anything about his background ? 

Mr. Benz. Mr. Hearing had told me that he was a former member 
of the Nazi Party. 

Mr. Lenzner. Were yon conducting these pickets at Mr. Segretti's 
direction ? I mean, did you do this operation at his direction ? 

Mr. Benz. We were in contact. 

Mr. Lenzner. Had he advised you of the train schedule? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, he had. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also discuss the possibility of disrupting Sen- 
ator Muskie's train schedule by furnishing false information to his 
headquarters office about his schedule? 


Mr, Benz. Right. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also obtain pickets at a speech that Senator 
Muskie gave at the University of Southern Florida ? 

Mr. Benz. I do not recall which Presidential candidate it was that 
appeared at the University of Southern Florida. I obtained pickets 
that did go out to the University of Southern Florida. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it you obtained pickets on a number of occa- 
sions for a number of candidates, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also attend two rallies for Governor Wal- 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you distribute or have distributed literature 
at one of those rallies ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wliere was that? 

Mr. Benz. St. Petersburg, Fla. 

Mr. Lenzner. I believe that document is tab 18 [exhibit No. 214*], 
but I would like to hand you, if I can, a copy and ask you if that is 
the document that you were handing out at that rally, or one similar 
to it? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you read that, please? 

Mr. Benz. "If you liked Hitler, you'll just love Wallace." 

Mr. Lenzner. AVliat does it say on the other side ? 

Mr. Benz. "A vote for Wallace is a wasted vote. On March 14, cast 
your vote for Senator Edmund Muskie."' 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall how many of those you distributed? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you estimate it ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall having about 500 or 1,000 of those 
printed ? 

Mr. Benz. It could have been that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Could it have been more ? 

Mr. Benz. I do not really recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also receive in the mail posters which are 
now, one of which is now in evidence, saying, "Help Muskie support 
busing our children?" 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you distribute those? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where did you distribute those ? 

Mr. Benz. In the northern section of Florida, 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you name the cities ? 

Mr. Benz. Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did yon have Mr. Hearing also distribute those? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where did he put them up ? 

Mr. Benz. In the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, you started to, in response to another question, 
talk about a letter which appeared to come from a former Muskie 

♦See Book 10, p. 4292. 


Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you look at tab 9 [exhibit No. 205*] of the 
documents ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you have that letter prepared ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you have it typed on that stationery ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. That is Senator Muskie's stationery ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you have it sent to anybody ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes; we did. 

Mr. Lenznfjr. Where was it sent ? 

Mr. Benz. I believe it was sent to the news media. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was it also sent to Senator Jackson's campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. Probably was. 

Mr. Lenzner. If you will look on the front of that document, it 
seems to indicate that the letter was directed to Senator Jackson's 
campaign and a copy was sent to another office of Senator Jackson. 
Is that accurate ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, in March of 1972, did Mr. Segretti indicate to 
you that something hot was coming in the mail ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you thereafter receive some items in the 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe what those were ? 

Mr. Benz. That was the letter concerning the sexual misconduct of 
Senators Jackson and Humphrey. 

Mr. Lenzner. And what else was in the package? 

Mr. Benz. Stationery, envelopes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was that Senator Muskie's stationery ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did you do with that, with those materials? 

Mr. Benz. I gave it to Mr. Hearing. 

Mr. Lenzner, And what was he instructed to do with them ? 

Mr. Benz. Mail them. 

Mr. Lenzner. The letter was retyped on the stationery? 

Mr. Benz. The letter had to be duplicated on the stationery. 

Mr. Lenzner. And who did he mail them to? 

Mr. Benz. As I recall, it was supporters of Senator Jackson. 

Mr. Lenzner. "\Yliere did you get those names? 

Mr. Benz. From Miss Frohlich. 

Mr. Lenzner. Miss Frohlich was inside Senator Jackson's cam- 
paign ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that is the letter that you referred to before that 
Mr. Hearing was prosecuted on, is that correct ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, did Mr. Segretti also give you three vials of 
some chemical substance sometime in March of 1972 ? 

1=896 Book 10, p. 4279. 


Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. What discussion did you have with him at that time? 

Mr. Benz. I cannot recall the conversation, but I do recall him in- 
structing me to place this liquid substance into the headquarters of 
Senator Muskie, the two headquarters in Tampa. And also at the 
picnic. I do not recall if that was at that particular time or not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was this shortly before the primary of March 14 ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wliat did you do with those ? 

Mr. Benz. I gave them to Mr. Hearing. 

Mr. Lenzner. And to your knowledge, what did Mr. Hearing do 
with the chemical compoimd ? 

Mr. Benz. As he told me, he placed those into the headquarters of 
Senator Muskie. 

Mr. Lenzner. Into two headquarters ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. They were two different locations ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was one of the headquarters called the telephone 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Were these placed the day before the primary ? 

Mr. Benz. Evening. 

Mr. Lenzner. The evening of the primary ? 

Did Mr. Hearing indicate how they gained entrance to those build- 

Mr. Benz. They did not gain entrance. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, how did they get access to them ? 

Mr. Benz. Access to the building? 

Mr. Lenzner. So they could throw or do whatever they had to do 
with the chemical ? 

Mr. Benz. Well, in one building, there was a hole in the window 
which they dropped the substance through. In another building, as it 
was told by me, the screen was open and the window was open and they 
dropped it in. 

Mr. Lenzner. They didn't tell you that they removed the screen? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct, as I recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. "Which is correct, that they did remove the screen or 
they didn't? 

Mr. Benz. As I recall, the screen was already open. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wliat did Mr. Hearing do with the other chemical ? 

Mr. Benz. They took that to the picnic. It was a Senator Muskie 
picnic and they emptied the vial at the picnic. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where was that picnic held ? 

Mr. Benz. It was on the grounds of the Mary Help of Christians 
Church School. 

Mr. Lenzner. You and Mr. Segretti observed that picnic, did you 

Mr. Benz. No ; we did not. 

Mr. Lenzner. You were not in the area ? 

Mr. Benz. Not at the time of the picnic. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you pay Mr. Hearing for those ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 


Mr. Lenzner. How much did you pay him ? 

Mr. Benz. Probably $100, something to that effect. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you later see any of those incidents published in 
any newspaper? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you send Mr. Segretti the clippings? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when, at Segretti's request, vou 
left the State of Florida ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wliere did you go ? 

Mr. Benz. Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Mr. Lenzner. "\Yliat was the purpose of that trip ? 

Mr. Benz. To start the same type of organization that was in 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you contact people for the purpose of that ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenznek. Now, I take it that was to infiltrate campaigns and 
possibly disrupt political events ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner, Did you also travel to Milwaukee, Wis., with 
Segretti ? 

Mr. Benz. Not the complete way with Mr. Segretti. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, from Chicago with him ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did you do when you got to Milwaukee? 

Mr. Benz. We distributed the campaign fliers that had the informa- 
tion concerning the free chicken barbecue. 

Mr. Lenzner. At whose campaign was that supposed to be at ? 

Mr. Benz. Senator Humphrey's. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it that was an event that you created ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you look at tab 14 [exhibit No, 210*] of your 
documents ? 

Is that the leaflet you distributed in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Benz, That is correct, 

Mr. Lenzner. And that advertises all you can eat for free, with beer, 
wine, and soda ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. It also advertises the appearance of some individuals. 
Would you indicate which individuals you indicated were going to 
appear ? 

Mr. Benz. Senator Humphrey, Lome Greene, and Mrs. Martin 
Luther King. 

Mr, Lenzner, And what areas of the city did you distribute that in ? 

Mr. Benz. All the areas of town. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember approximately how many you 
distributed ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Going back to the picnic where the chemical was dis- 
tributed, do you recall telling the FBI agents who interviewed you in 

*See Book 10, p. 4285. 


INIay of this year that yon drove down to tlie INIuskie picnic on Snnday 
eveninof and noticed that the chemical had been distributed? 

Mr. Bexz. That is correct. 

INIr. Lexzxer. So yon did sfo to the picnic area ? 

Mr. Bexz. I did <zo to the picnic area. I did not attend tlie i^icnic, as 
yon said before. 

Mr. Lexzx^er. Thank yon, Mr. Benz. Tliat is very helpfnh 

Now, did yon also discnss with Mr. Senrretti possible activities at 
the demonstration — at the Democratic convention in the snmmer of 

Mr. Bexz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Wonld yon describe that discnssion ? 

Mr. Bexz. He basically mentioned that I possibly misfht be needed 
to travel to one of the conventions to join in on some of the demonsti-a- 

Mr. Lexzxer. And did he indicate that he wonld be hirin^: other 
individnals for that pnrpose ? 

Mr. Bexz. He indicated that he wanted me to inqnire to see if I 
conld iret some others. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did he f nrnish yon any money at that time ? 

Mr. Bexz. I do not recall him fnrnishino; any money at that time 
specifically. He fnrnished me with money all dnrin^: the campaign 
and I cannot recall the specific times at which he did. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now, did yon receive any indications from the people 
that yon had inside the campaiarns as to what resnlts yon were achiev- 
ing throngh yonr other activities? 

Mr. Bexz. Only the Mnskie campaign. 

Mr. Lex'zx-^er. "\Tliat did yon learn from that ? 

Mr. Bexz. Well, the staffs themselves were annoyed abont what we 
were doing. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. When yon indicated yonr activities to Mr. Segretti, 
was he pleased by what von told him ? 

Mr. Bex'^z. He generally was. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Did he indicate at any time that the people he was 
working for were also pleased ? 

Mr. Bexz. He might have. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yon don't recall now whether he did or didn't? 

Mr. Bexz. Not specifically. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. Did yon have in yonr possession at one time docn- 
ments and records relating to the activities yon testified abont ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Bex^z. Wonld yon repeat that qnestion ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yoi; had materials and records relating to the activi- 
ties that yon did for Segretti ; is that trne ? 

Mr. Bexz. At one time : yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And what happened to those docnments? 

Mr. Bex^z. I destroyed them. 

Mr, Lexzxer. When was that, do yon recall ? 

Mr. Bexz. I believe I — it conld have been in the snmmer of 1972 
and it conld have been in the fall. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Is there any reason why yon destroyed those 
documents ? 


Mr. Benz, Well especially when I saw Mr. Segretti's name and pic- 
ture in the news media, that was the time that I destroyed any re- 
maining information that I did have. 

Mr, Lenzner. Wlien were you first contacted by any investigative 
agency ? 

Mr. Benz. I believe that was January of 1973 — the FBI — unless 
you are referring to Senate investigation people. 

Mr. Lenzner. No, the FBI. January of 1973 ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. There is a vote in the Senate. We will have to tem- 
porarily suspend so members of the committee can go and vote. 


Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will 
cross-examine the witness. 

Mr, Liebengood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Benz, what were you doing when you were first contacted by 
Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Benz. I was a part-time student delivering newspapers for the 
Tampa Tribune. 

Mr. Liebengood. And you were going to school where ? 

Mr. Benz. The University of South Florida. 

Mr. Liebengood. Did you accept Mr. Segretti's proposition that 
you engage in certain political activity on your own volition? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. Liebengood. Did Mr. Segretti make any promises of politi- 
cal favors to you at that time ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. Liebengood. Did he at any time make such promises or 
overtures ? 

Mr. Benz. He mentioned after the election the possibility of some 
type of job ; he never was specific. 

Mr. Liebengood. He was not specific ? 

Mr. Benz. No. 

Mr. Liebengood. Did Mr. Segretti indicate to you at the time of 
his initial contact or thereafter whom he worked for ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. Liebengood. Did you have any contact during the period of 
time that you were performing activities with Mr. Segretti, any 
contact with the Republican National Committee ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. Liebengood. The Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. Benz. Yes and no. 

Mr. Liebengood. Would you explain that yes-and-no answer, 
please ? 

Mr. Benz. "\^nien I was — after we had finished this complete opera- 
tion I was workino; for a candidate running for the State house of 
representatives, and during the course of that I did come in contact 
with people locally wiio were working in behalf of President Nixon's 

Mr. Liebengood. Was this during the period of time that you were 
being engaged in the activities with Mr. Segretti ? 


Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

ISfr. LrEBENGOOD. During that period of time from the time Mr. 
Segretti first contacted you to the time that you ceased such opera- 
tions, did you have any contact Avith any rejridar Republican 
oro;anization ? 

Mr. Benz. Excuse me. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. To include local campaio-n organizations. 

Mr. Benz. Not in connection with this, not at all. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did Mr. Segretti give you any instructions with 
regard to coordination of your activities with local Republican 
organizations ? 

Mr. Benz. No. Well, Mr. Segretti gave me the explicit instruction 
not to — not to contact anybody within the Republican Party during 
my actions. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. When did he give you this instruction ? 

Mr. Benz. During the fii-st meeting. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. ]3id you follow that instruction ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you have any contact with a person who you 
know to be Howard Hunt alias Edward Warren ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did Mr. Segretti ever explain to you or did you 
ever ask, did you ever come into knowledge during the time that you 
were working for Mr. Segretti as to the source of the money tliat he 
was paying you? 

Mr. Benz. No ; I never asked that. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. How much money did you sav he agreed to pay 
you, $150? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Was this figure maintained throughout your per- 
formance of work with him ? 

Mr. Benz. Approximately. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Was $150 a month enough to sustain you at that 
time in and of itself ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I take it that money was not your primary motive 
for engaging in these activities? 

INI r. Benz. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. '^^Hiat was your primary motive for engaging in 
these activities ? 

Mr. Benz. I think that I could Ix'st explain that by stating the ques- 
tion that Mr. Segretti put forward to me at the Causeway Inn when 
he asked me whether T knew the difference between positive campaign- 
ing and negative campai^nino-, and I answered the negative campaign- 
ing — excuse me, lie asked me if I knew what negative campaigning was 
and I answered that. "It is opposite of positive campaigning," and he 
said, "Yes,"' and then I went on to explain some of the little dii-ty tricks 
that were pulled on the campaign that I was involved in the 1970 elec- 
tions and I also explained to him that many of the principals that were 
iuAolved in the 1970 elections woi'e now managing the Democratic pri- 
mary campaigns in Florida, and I also felt that this would be an op- 
portunity for myself to give these people a little bit of the medicine 
they have given me in the past. 


Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Are you saying then that this was your primary 
motive for acceptino; his proposition? 

Mr. Benz. Well, I felt that in the past, in my local area basically, the 
Democrats liad been almost on an election-type basis, always partic- 
ipated in this form of action and as Republicans since we were in a mi- 
noi-ity, we were unable to, we also had to strictly abide by the law. I 
felt if the Democrats got a little bit of a dose of their own type of 
activities then they would be little bit reluctant to do this to us in the 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. So you were taking the proposition that the two 
wrongs would make a right? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You engaged several people in several primary cam- 
paigns to infiltrate the respective Democratic campaigns and I under- 
stand you did this at the suggestion of Mr. Segretti. 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Were all those infiltrations at his suggestion? 

Mr. Benz. Probably was. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you know, and will you tell the committee, the 
rationale behind the infiltration of an opponent's campaign or in this 
case respective Democratic opponents' campaigns? 

Mr. Benz. I think that in most all the elections, including probably 
some of the Senators who are sitting around this table here, have al- 
ways desired information on their opponents and this was our same 
desire to gather this information. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Wliat was your purpose in gathering the infor- 
mation, what was done with the information once it was gathered? 

Mr. Benz. We used it in order to plan our action, our action to 
cause as much confusion among the Democrats as possible. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you forward all the material procured from 
the Democratic campaigns to Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you operate on any of this information in- 
dependently of coordination with Mr. Segretti? 

Mr. Benz. I operated both independently and also in cooperation 
with Mr. Segretti. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. There has been some evidence that you promoted 
or were asked to promote incidents of heckling and demonstrations. 
Can you tell the committee what the purpose of that activity might 

Mr. Benz. The same, you know, it is just to cause a confusion type 
of activity among the candidates. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I uotcd in the witness summary, and I think Mr. 
Lenzner alluded to it in his questioning, that there was a recruitment 
of George Hearing to participate in a Muskie train trip project where 
there was literature passed out. 

Was this literature passed out on the Muskie train ? 

Mr. Benz. Are you stating that I said 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I am asking whether or not the literature was 
passed out on the Muskie train. 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. We didn't pass out any liter- 
ature at the Muskie train stop. That was pickets. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 4 


Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Ill other words, the information here that litera- 
ture was passed out in conjunction with the Muskie train trip is not 
accurate ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Thank you. 

Now, do you have any knowledo;e of the fabled Canuck letter ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir ; none at all. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Is it safe to say that the bulk of your activity was 
concentrated in the State of Florida ? 

Mr. Benz. The bulk of it ; yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Your activity in Pennsylvania was limited to 

Mr. Benz. Contactin^r one man that I asked to jiarticipate in basi- 
cally the same as far as acquiring hecklers and pickets, and also to 
send me any news clippings of any of the actions on the part of any 
of the primary candidates and, in fact, that is just what this person 
did. He always did whatever he sent me was just newspaper clippings. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you conduct any activities in the State of Wis- 
consin other than the receipt of bumper stickers from ]Mr, Segretti 
for use in Milwaukee, the delivery of flowers, pizza and chicken to 
Senator Muskie's hotel room, and the preparation and distribution 
of the fliers that have been ]:»reviously testified to ? 

Mr. Benz. And also one time, two limousines. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Two limousines, was that the extent of your ac- 
tivity in the Wisconsin primary ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you feel that any of these activities influenced 
the outcome of the primaries in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. What about your activities in Florida ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Was the purpose of your activity to influence the 
outcome of these primaries or was that a secondary purpose? 

Mr. Benz. That was probably a primary purpose at the beginning. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You had indicated earlier that your goal was to 
create disruption among the Democratic camps ? 

Mr, Benz. That is correct. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Disseut, agitation ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you recall whether or not this was a primary 
purpose of your activity ? 

Mr. Benz. Well, that probably was the primarv purpose of just caus- 
ing as much confusion among the staffs as possible, that was probably 
the main primary purpose. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you think you succeeded in that purpose ? 

Mr. Benz. In one of the candidates we probably did. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I gleaned from your earlier answer that you were 
motivated in part by a desire for revenge, that you hoped, as I under- 
stood your answer, to impress upon others who might have been dis- 
posed to this activity that, by virtue of your actions, this was an un- 
desirable activity, is that what you were telling me ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 


Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Now, can you think of any legitimate measures that 
this committee might consider ? 

Mr. Benz. Certainly. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. To halt this activity ? 

Mr. Benz. Certainly. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Would you please give us the benefit of your 

Mr. Benz. Starting from the beginning, I think just prosecuting and 
protecting Republicans and Democrats equally under the law ; I think 
your prol3lem is going to be solved but if you do not take this type of 
approach, then you are going to continue to have this. 

Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Thank you. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Do you believe the fact that somebody did evil yes- 
terday justifies you to do evil today ? 

Mr. Benz. No ; I do not believe that. 

Senator Ervin. That is what you said you did in this. You said 
Democrats had done this. Can you tell me any time in the history of 
the United States that aides in the White House and the President's 
]3ersonal attorney made money available to people to spread lies and 
libels on candidates of the opposition party ? 

Mr. Benz. I do not know if that has been proven or not, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I have been engaged in and concerned with politics 
for a long time and I have been interested in the political history of 
the United States and I challenge you or anybody else to point out 
a single instance in the liistory of this Nation, where money donated 
to advance the political fortunes of a President, was used with the 
consent of the President's assistants in the "Wliite House, to spread 
libels against candidates of the opposition political party? 

Mr. Benz. Are you asking me that question ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes; there was a question mark after that. 

Mr. Benz. I think the firet thing to answer that, can you tell me 
whenever a President has been investigated by the news media and by 
a committee as much as this one ? 

Second, where were you in 1960 when it was accused that an election 
w^as stolen out in Chicago? We are talking now about a campaign 
being influenced and I believe you were a Member of the Senate when 
it was accused that a campaign was stolen. Senator. Wliere were you 
then? Where were you in 1964 and 1968? 

Senator Ervin. I was right here in the United States and I never 
heard of a campaign being stolen on the credible testimony of any 
individual. And this is the first time in the history of the United States 
that the Senate of the United States, by a unanimous vote, has been 
moved by reports of rascality on a national scale to set up a committee 
to conduct an investigation. 

Now, you helped to circulate a report, that a candidate for President 
was guilty of homosexuality, did you not? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Senator Er\t[n. Are you proud of your achievement? 

Mr. Benz. I am not proud that I felt I had to do that ; no, sir. 

Senator ER\qN. You did not have to do it. Nobody compelled you 
to do it, did they ? 


Mr. Benz. Wliat people tell me is not the most compelling force 
involved witli me, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. You had never seen this man Segretti before in 
your life until he came to you. Did you ? 

Mr. Bexz. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you did it in this instance because he promised 
you $150 a month and expenses, did you not? 

Mr. Benz. Are you saying "because" ? 

Senator Ervin. I say you did it in this instance because he prom- 
ised to pay you $150 a month and your expenses? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, why did you take the $150 a month and 

Mr. Benz. I needed to cover the expenses, Senator. I could not 
afford to cover the expenses. 

Senator Ervin. How long were you working or getting money from 

Mr, Benz. Five or six months, maybe. 

Senator Ervin. Five or six months. And that 5 or 6 months you 
spent disseminating libels on people when you knew they were not 
true, and did other things to disrupt the campaigns of Democrats 
merely because they were Democrats. Is that not so? 

Mr. McLaughlin. Could you repeat that ? 

Senator Ervin. Read him the question. 

[The reporter read the question.] 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator ER^^N. Well, why did you do it ? 

Mr. Benz. I believe I stated my answer to that question before. 
Would you like me to repeat it ? 

Senator Ervin. Well, I asked you if you have ever known of Wliite 
House aides authorizing the use of campaign funds to spread foul 
slanders and libels against reputable men seeking political office? 

Mr. Benz. I would not know that the money I used was White 
House money. 

Senator Ervin. You said possibly the Senators here on this commit- 
tee have been engaged in tactics like that. 

Mr. Benz. I would not know. You would know that. 

Senator Ervin. You said we had possibly infiltrated campaign orga- 
nizations of our opponents. 

Mr. Benz. I said I believed that probably you Senators yourselves, 
when you run a campaign, you are always interested in opponent 
research and this is one way that maybe you used. This is maybe not 
the most common way. 

Senator Ervin. You are not testifying that I ever sent a spy into the 
campaign organization of any of my opponents, are you ? 

Mr. Benz. Only you would know that. Senator. 

Senator ER\qN. Well, I will tell you, I have never done that and I 
have been in politics since 1922. And I have never in that time known 
or heard of things going on, at least in North Carolina, that you say 
you perpetrated in Florida and Wisconsin. 

Senator Weicker. 

Wait, I have one more question. 


Do you not know that when you circulated that rumor, that false 
libel about Senator Jackson and Senator Muskie, that that occurred 
before March 1972 ? 

Mr. McLaughlin. I beg your pardon, sir. 

Senator Ervin. 1972. Before the primary in March. The primary in 
Florida was in March 1972, was it not March 14 ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; it was circulated before that. 

Senator Ervin. And that became known down there, didn't it ? Ref- 
erence was made to it in the paper. 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you know it was reported to a U.S. district 
attorney ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you also know that nothing was done about it 
by the U.S. district attorney that anybody could detect prior to April 
of this year, more than 14 months after it was done. 

Mr. Benz. I would not know that. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you do know that Mr. Hearing, wlio associated 
with you in your work, and Mr. Segretti were indicted in Federal 
court in Florida in May or the last of April and the first of May 1973 
for something that the Federal authorities there had known about as 
far back as March of 1972. 

Mr. Benz. Some of that was reported in the newspapers, sir, yes, 
sir. I did read that in the newspaper. 

Senator Ervin. And you know that Mr. Hearing pleaded guilty to 
failing to identify the people that perpetrated this false libel on Sen- 
ator Jaclcson and Senator Humphrey. 

Mr. Benz. I know that, yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you speak about enforcing the law. It seems 
like to me that justice in Florida in the Federal courts was traveling 
on somewhat leaden feet. 

One thing you said I fully concur in. That is that the law ought to 
be enforced against everybody. 

Mr. Benz. That is absolutely correct. 

Senator Ervin. And one thing that somebody deserves credit for is 
the fact that there have been seven men convicted here in the District 
court for trying to pollute the process by which Presidents of the 
United States are nominated and elected, and since then, two of the 
aides, three employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President have 
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that Mr. Segretti 
has also pleaded guilty in connection with matters you and he were 
interested in and that Mr. Hearing was sent to jail on account of the 
same thing. 

Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. I would like to continue the same line of question- 
ing as the chairman, Mr. Benz. 

As I understand it, the letter concerning or alleging sexual impro- 
priety on the part of Senators Jackson and Humphrey, this letter was 
totally false, was drafted by Mr. Segretti and turned over to you. Is 
that correct? 

Mr. Benz. It is correct that it was turned over to me, yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Then what did you do with it ? 


Mr. Benz. I gave that information to Mr. Hearing, the packet. 
There was other material with the letter also, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. And you were the one who had hired Mr. Hearing 
in the first instance ? 

Mr. Benz. Earlier in the campaign, yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. So you had hired Mr. Hearing and you turned 
that letter over to Mr. Hearing ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. And as I understand it, Mr. Hearing is serving a 
jail sentence right now on the basis of having distributed that letter? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Did you at any time appear in behalf of Mr. 
Hearing and indicate that in fact, he was opei-ating on your orders? 

Mr. Benz. Only in the grand jury I have, and speaking with the 
FBI, I liave, and also speaking with vour committee staff, I have stated 
that fact. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I don't understand why it is, that ]Mr. Hear- 
ing is in jail insofar as this letter is concerned. 

How is it, in other words, that you seem to have gone completely free 
in this matter and actually, you were the one who gave the orders on 
the letter. I am a little bit confused on that. 

Mr. McLaughlin. He was called before the grand jury on several 
occasions and took the fifth amendment. The next time lie was called 
before the grand jury, he was granted immunity from prosecution and 
required to testify or to go to jail for contempt. He was advised by 
other legal counsel than myself to go ahead and present testimony. He 
did so. He had been granted immunity from prosecution by the grand 
jury and the grand jury that had that information is the one that in- 
dicted INIr. Segretti and Mr. Hearing. 

Is that satisfactory ? 

Senator Weicker. Then, am I correct in assuming that Mr. Benz was 
a witness against Mr. Hearing, is that correct ? 

Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir, Mr. Benz was not a witness against Mr. 
Hearing, because INIr. Hearing did plead guilty and there was no trial. 
Mr. Weicker. You referred to activities in 1970 which formed the 
basis of your participation in the events which have been alledged to 
you. Did vou ever lodge a complaint with law enforcement authorities 
in 1970? 

Mr. Benz. I reported everything to my superiors in the campaign. 
I don't know what action they took on that. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. But then how is it possible to go and blame the 
justice system in Florida for what, according to you, didn't happen? 
Mr. McLaughlin. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Weicker. As I understand it, the basis, the motivating fac- 
tor of Mr. Benz' activities in the 1972 campaign, were the fact that 
similar matters had been done to him in 1970, and apparently no action 
was taken. I have asked him to specifically list those activities. I am 
asking that now. 

Also, I asked the question as to whether or not he filed a complaint 
with the appropriate law enforcement agencies, which agencies, ac- 
cording to Mr. Benz, did nothing ? 

Mr. McLaughlin. He stated he was not sure. He turned the informa- 
tion over to his supervisors and he is not sure whether they filed police 
complaints or not. I don't know, either. 


Senator Weicker. Well, were your superiors Representatives? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I am very confused as to how we are going to 
blame — I mean there are a lot of things we can blame the Democrats 
for, but I don't understand how we are going to blame the Democrats in 
your situation in 1970 or the law enforcement officials in Florida. 

How does that form the basis for getting riled and trying to do the 
same thing to the Democrats in 1972 ? Can you explain that to me ? 

Mr. Benz. Do you want specifics, Senator, the actions that were done? 
Is this your question ? 

Senator Weicker. Yes ; it is a question. I want to know from you — 
you say that on the basis of your experiences in 1970, you felt the time 
had come to— that turnabout is f airplay and that you are going to give 
it to the Democrats. 

Now, you told me that the dirty tricks that were apparently played 
on you, you reported to Republicans. You have also told me that you 
did not report them to any law enforcement agencies. How can you 
blame, then, these matters on either the law enforcement agencies in 
Florida or the Democrats ? Doesn't the fault lie in your own party in 
failing to pursue the information which you gave to them ? 

Mr. Benz. In many cases, the information was almost public knowl- 
edge, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Well, that may be, but somebody has to go ahead 
and file a complaint. Somebody has to give information. Did you do 

Mr. Benz. It was not my place to do that, Senator. It would have been 
one of my superiors' positions to do that. I do not know if they did that 
or not. They might have. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Well, then, in other words, it was the Republicans 
in your organization, your Republican superiors who dropped the ball, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Benz. I do not know if they dropped the ball or not. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Obviously, if they had gone ahead and lodged a 
complaint with law enforcement agencies, you would have had to tes- 
tify in that matter and apparently, you didn't. 

Mr. Benz. Usually, it is dropped before it gets that far. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. I suggest to you that you were given every oppor- 
tunity to go ahead and go the legal route in 1970 on the matters that 
you complain about and that they really don't form a valid basis for 
your motivation in 1972. 

Mr. Benz. In my mind, they do. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. But on the basis of facts, they don't. 

Mr. Benz. Your facts or mine. Senator ? 

Senator Weicker. Your facts. 

Mr. Benz. On my facts, they do, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Well, then, you tell me how. 

Mr. Benz. I believe I have answered that question. 

Senator Weicker. You have not answered it. I will repeat what I 
said to you earlier. 

I asked you and had asked earlier, did you report these matters to 
the appropriate law enforcement agencies ? 

Mr. Benz. I reported those matters to my appropriate superiors. 

Senator Weicker. Who were Republicans ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 


Senator Weicker. So tliat in nowise were the Democrats involved 
in failing to prosecute these abuses? 

Mr. Benz. Not in failing to prosecute, just in committing the acts. 

Senator Weicker. I believe in the staff hearing, on questioning from 
Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong stated : 

111 any prior campaigns that you had worked, were you aware of any attempts 
to plant demonstrators or hecklers? 

Mr. Benz. Sure. 

Mr. Armstrong. What were those? 

Mr. Bknz. I know wlien we were working for Cramer, we had all sorts of stuff 
done against us by the Democrats. 

Mr. Armstrong. How did .vou know they were being done by the Democrats? 

Mr. Benz. There is no proof. 

Mr. Rexz. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. So in other words, there are no facts to sub- 
stantiate the theory which you put forth to this committee to justify 
your own action? 

Mr. Benz. I believe, Senator, that if this committee would investi- 
gate campaigns such as the one that they have just investigated, they 
are going to find the same similar acts. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, you belong to the school that 
says everybody has been doing it and this particular campaign wasn't 
imusual at all? 

Mr. Benz. That seems to be the general opinion with the exception 
of politics, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. And that this is exactly the way, at least insofar 
as your experience is concerned, let me put it this way— the placing 
of informants — that you were involved in here — placing of informers 
in the Tampa headquarters of Senators Muskie and Jackson, the 
releasing to the press of a scheduled f undraising dinner, anti-Muskie 
pickets calling him a bigot, a fictitious letter alleging the use by Muskie 
of aides and typewriters of Congressman Gibbons in Florida, the pick- 
eting of Muskie's appearance with signs "If you liked Hitler, you will 
love Wallace, Vote for Muskie," supervising the printing and distri- 
bution of scurrilous letters about Senators Humphrey and Jackson, 
and the placing of stinkbombs at Muskie picnics and Muskie head- 
quarters — these are all the norm in Florida politics, is that correct? 

Mr. Benz. Maybe not those specific acts. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Well, are there acts — ^are the acts that you are 
discussing now, are they worse or the same? If they are worse I w^ould 
like to hear about them. I would like to know of your experience in 
these matters. 

Mr. Benz. All right, would you like — 1970 was just one particular 
example. There were others. But if you would like, I can give you the 
complete nmdown of 1970 dirty tricks. 

Senator Weicker. I certainly would. I would also hope that these 
matters have been turned over to the appropriate law enforcement 
agencies in Florida. 

Mr. Benz. They have been given over to the FBI, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Given over to the FBI when ? At the time they 
occurred or at the time this investigation started ? 

Mr. Benz. I think we covered that before. Senator. That again— 
I stated that I felt it was not my place to give that information over 


to the oflScials and I did give that information over to my superior 
which I felt was my duty. As I said, I do not know whether they 
turned it over to the officials or not. 

Senator Weicker. You just said you gave it to the FBI. When did 
you turn these matters over to the FBI ? 

Mr. Benz. About a year ago. 

Senator Weicker. At the time you were being investigated relative 
to the 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Senator Weicker. Well, that is a little late, isn't it? 

Mr. Benz. It probably is. 

Senator Weicker. Why didn't you go to the FBI before then ? 

Mr. Benz, Again, I think I mentioned that before. Senator, about 
five times. 

Senator Weicker, Now then, my last question in this round is this : 
What are your opinions of what you did ? Is this proper campaigning? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Well, what has brought about a change of mind? 

Mr. Benz. I have always felt this was improper campaigning 

Senator Weicker. And you knew it was improper when you did it, 
but you did it anyway ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Senator Weicker, Well, I have no further questions on this round, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr, Benz, do you have any regrets about your 
activities in that campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir ; sure. 

Senator Talmadge, You are not proud of what you did then ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You are contrite ? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Senator Talmadge, Do you have regrets that one of your sub- 
ordinates, Mr. Hearing, serves 1 year in jail at the present time and you 
are walking the streets free? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. It makes you feel that you are quite lucky to be 
free at the present time, does it not? 

Mr. Benz. Correct. 

Senator Talmadge. Wlien did you start feeling regretful about your 
activity in that campaign ? 

Mr. Benz, From the beginning. 

Senator Talmadge. "When ? 

Mr. Benz. From the beginning when Mr. Segretti approached me 
at the Causeway Inn. 

Senator Talmadge, Did you feel regretful enough at that time to 
inform the FBI about your activities? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you feel regretful enough to inform any 
other law enforcement officer ? 

Mr, Benz, No. sir. 


Senator Talmadge. Were you ever instructed not to speak to any of 
the law enforcement officers? 

Mr. Bexz. Just tlie opposite, sir. 

Senator Talmaixje. Who informed vou to speak to tlie officers? 

]Mr. Bexz. Mr. Setrretti. 

Senator TAL^rAiKiE. Did you <ro to the law enforcement officers at that 
time and speak the opposite? 

Mr. Bexz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Why did you remain silent? 

Mr. Bexz. I remained silent until they questioned mc and I have co- 
operated with them, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. I believe you had two subordinates. One was 
named Mr. Duke and the other one was named Mr. Hearing; is that 

Mr. I^EXZ. His nickname was Duke; I do not believe that was his 
last luinie. 

Senator Talmadge. One was named Duke and the other Hearintr? 

Mr, Bexz. Correct. 

Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Hearing tell you that this man Duke 
was a former SS officer for Adolf Hitler's storm troopers? 

]\rr. Bexz. Correct. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you believe that? 

Mr. Bexz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Did Duke ever tell you that? 

Mr. Bexz. I do not recall if he ever did nor not. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you feel that being trained by Adolf Hitler 
and his storm troopers particularly qualified him for the duties that 
yo\i assigned to him ? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Bex-^z. T do not know of any training school that would train 
him for this work. 

Senator Talmadge. I coidd not hear you. 

Mr. Bexz. I said I do not know of any training scliool that would 
train a person for this type of work. 

Senator Talmadge. Were not the activities quite similar? Did not 
Hitler's Xazi storm troopers perform similar activities to what you 
were engaged in, in Florida? 

Air. Bexz. I would not know that, Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. You have read some history of that period, 
have you not ? 

Mr! Bexz. Correct. 

Senator Talmadge. You have read "Rise and Fall of the Third 
Reich", I take it? 
Mr. Bexz. Correct. 

Senator TAL:\rADGE. Are not the activities of the Nazi storm troop- 
ers somewhat similar? 

Mr. Bexz. I do not recall if he ever did or not. 

Senator TAL:vrADGE. I thought they were. T read about a good 
many falsified documents during that era and libels and slander about 
the opposition. It was one of the ways, as I recall, that Adolf Hitler 
achieved power. 

Do you think Duke carried on his activities in an exemplary fash- 
ion in that manner, do you? 
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 


Senator Talmadge. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. Most of the questions I had in mind were asked, 
]\Ir. Chairman, but, Mr. Benz, I would like to have your thoughts 
as to whether the f ollowino; activities are legal or moral or ethical : 
The distribution of misleading literature without the source being 

Mr. Benz. That covers — it is not. Senator. 

Senator Inouye. The sending of fake invitations to nonexistent 

Mr. Benz. It is probably not, sir. 

Senator Inouye. It is not legal ? 

Mr. Benz. Sending invitations — I guess it would depend upon 
whether there was any name identification. Senator. 

Senator Inouye. No; sending out invitations to events, nonexist- 
ing events, such as the ones you sent out. Was that 

Mr. Benz. If there is no name identification on it then it would 
bo illegal. I do not have the information if there would be a name 
identification on it whether it would break the law or not. 

Senator Inouye. Even if it is legal, do you think it is moral or 
ethical ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. What about issuing fake press releases? 

Mr. Benz. Right ; correct. 

Senator Inouye. It is OK ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir, I am sorry ; it is not. 

Senator Inouye. How about circulating false, salacious, libelous, 
and untrue letters designed to injure the candidate of the opposition 
party ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. That is not legal ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Wliat about breaking and entering by forcibly 
opening a window to place a stinkbomb in the headquarters of the 
opposition party ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. What about stinkbombs in general? 

Mr. Benz. I do not know whether that is illegal or not, Senator. 

Senator Inouye. You think it is a good thing in a political 
campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. How about defiling a phone bank ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. How did you carry this out, sir? I believe you 
were involved in the defiling of a phone bank. 

Could you describe to us what happened ? 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I think I have already cov- 
ered when I received the material — ^you want to go on from there? 

Senator Inouyt:. Yes, please. 

Mr. Benz. I gave the material to Mr. Hearing with instructions 
to place this material into the downtown headquarters, which was the 
]ihone bank and also the Muskie headquarters. And he later told me 
tliat he did in fact — there was a hole in the window of the telephone 


bank which they placed the substance through, and in the campaign 
headquarters itself there was an open window, and that there 
was a screen that I believe was loose and that he dropped it in there 
which would be the utility room. 

Senator Inotjye. Do you consider ordering supplies, food, bever- 
ages, on behalf of an opposition candidate — with no intention of pay- 
ment — legal, ethical, or moral ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Prior to Watergate and prior to the exposure of 
your involvement in the sabotage activities, did you consider that the 
money spent for furthering your sabotage activities was money well 
spent in the effort to reelect the President ? 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I really would not know the 
answer to that. Senator. 

Senator Inouye. I will ask another one then. Was the reelection of 
the President so important that any means would have justified 
that end? 

Mr, Benz, No, sir. 

Senator Inouye, Are you, in your discussion with one of my col- 
leagues here, suggesting that since the other party carried out dirty 
tricks, your party was entitled to do the same ? 

Mr, Benz. My belief at the time, sir, would be that if there were 
some action in answer to that, to the other party's actions that in the 
end — that they w ould pause a minute before they would, I was hoping 
that this would be a deterrent to further actions of this type. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. No questions. 

Senator Ervin, How long did you work in Wisconsin ? 

Mr, Benz. About 3 or 4 days, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. You had no grievance against the people of Wiscon- 
sin, did you — the Democrats of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel] . No, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. But you played dirty tricks up there on them ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. You mean to tell me that you sincerely believed that 
you were justified in disseminating false and scurrilous attacks upon 
the characters of Senator Jackson and Senator Humphrey because 
some Florida Democrats may have perpetuated some instance of which 
you disapproved upon Congressman Cramer ? 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I was not justified, Senator, but 
I was prompted. 

Senator Ervin. Well, Cain felt it \\as proper to kill his brother Abel 
but so far as I know he didn't offer much justification. 

Mr. Lenzner. Just one brief question. Mr. Benz, we have checked 
our records and checked the Special Prosecutor's office, and there is no 
indication in regard to the conversations you had with the FBI agents 
that you made any reference to any allegation involving Democratic 
misbehavior. Do you want to refresh your recollection of the fact that 
when you talked with the FBI, you did not indicate to them any such 
allegations ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir, not all the time that they did take down the infor- 
mation. I don't know if this was one of the times when the FBI did not 
write this information down. They took this by handwritten notes. 


We talked for some 40 hours, Senator — excuse me, we talked for 
some 40 hours and I have no knowledge of what they did write down 
and what they did not. 

Mr. Lenzner. And the two incidents that you related to us in re- 
sponse to our inquiry as to Avhat information you had about other in- 
cidents in prior campaigns, you indicated one was a poster that said 
"Join the Askew-Cramer Club" and one time you said that somebody 
came in posing as a radio reporter to interview, is that correct ? 

Mr. Benz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Those were the two instances you gave us ? 

Mr. Benz. Those were two of the instances ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner, That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya was in the telephone booth. 

Senator Montoya. I am ready now, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Yes ; you may proceed. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Benz, you have made a lot by way of motiva- 
tion of the existence of dirty tricks during the 1970 campaign, and you 
have failed to produce any evidence or specific instances of dirty tricks, 
but I want to ask you this question: Assuming that there were in- 
stances of dirty tricks during any Democratic campaign in Florida in 
1970, do you feel that this justifies you in maligning or vilifying honor- 
able men who are seeking the Presidency of the United States ? 

Mr. Benz. Not completely, Senator. But if somehow my actions, if 
it helped to clean up the system of politics, I think it could be justi- 

Senator Montoya. Now, assuming that you would have similar feel- 
ings about murder being committed by individuals, would you attempt 
to commit murder in order to justify or clean up such conditions? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. All right. Doesn't the same analogy apply ? 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. It should. 

Senator Montoya. Well, does it ? 

Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I think we are talking about 
oranges and apples. Senator. 

Senator Montoya. Well, I don't think so. I think we are talking 
about human beings, and we are talking about the dignity of human 
beings. We are talking about the free electoral process. We are talking 
about the American people w^ho deserve the truth in political cam- 
paigns. Don't you think that they deserve some consideration? 

Mr. Benz. A hundred percent. 

Senator Montoya. Why didn't you give them that consideration? 

Mr. Benz. I felt that I was, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You felt that you were giving them that consider- 
ation by spreading lies about Senator Jackson and Senator Muskie? 

Mr. Benz. I believe I have given my testimony as to why — what my 
justification was, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. Is that what you call giving consideration to a 
free people under a free electoral process under our constitutional 
system ? 

Mr. Benz. I think I have answered that question, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. No ; you haven't. 

Mr. Benz. Do you want me to repeat it ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 


Mr. Benz. I feel if my actions in any way would have cleaned up 
the political system, then I think that I have contributed sometliing, 

Senator Montoya. Wliat makes you think that you would be the 
great American vehicle for purity in politics after what you did? 

Mr. Benz. I don't think I would be a great American vehicle but 
if I did play some small role that would help out in that area, 
Senator — — 

Senator Montoya. Well, do you feel that your role has been small? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Do you feel it has been great? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir ; I believe it has been small. 

Senator Montoya. In what way, now ? Explain yourself. 

Mr. Benz. I just do not see the importance of my activities. Senator. 

Senator Montoya. Well, just explain how small your role has been 
and what you have contributed to purify politics in America. 

Mr. Benz. If my actions in any way would cause a deterrent to 
actions of this type, then I believe that in a small way it would 

Senator Montoya. Do you encourage the participation of young peo- 
ple in a similar role such as you performed with respect to our election 
campaigns in the United States ? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir ; I discourage that. 

Senator Montoya. Therefore, you are telling me that since you do 
not recommend that, it is not a very desirable role for anyone ? 

Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Senator Montoya. Let us go into how you hired Miss Patricia 
Griffin. Wliere was she from ? 

Mr. Benz. Tampa. 

Senator Montoya. Was she a lifelong resident of Tampa? 

Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Was she from South Carolina? 

Mr. Benz. I believe she was, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did she know Harry Dent? 

Mr. Benz. I don't — I never saw — I wouldn't know that, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did she ever speak to you about Harry Dent? 

Mr. Benz. Yes ; yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. She did. In what vein ? 

Mr. Benz. I believe that she had known him in South Carolina 

Senator Montoya. And did she indicate to you how recently, 
after you talked to her for the first time in Tampa, she had seen 
Harry Dent? 

Mr. Benz. I don't recall today, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Wliat conversation did you have with her with 
respect to Harrv^ Dent? 

]\f r. Benz. I think we have covered pretty much what I recall of the 
conversation. Senator. 

Senator Montoya. Did you know at the time who Harry Dent was? 

Mr. Benz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Who was he ? 

Mr. Benz. I l^elieve he was a White House counsel. 

Senator Montoya. How long- had she been in Tampa at the time 
that vou communicated with and hired her? 


Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I don't recall, Senator, how 
long she had been in Tampa. 

Senator Montoya. What particular justification did you present 
to her in hiring her and in offering her $75 a month ? 
Mr. Benz. It would be on behalf of President Nixon's reelection. 
Senator Montoya. Was she working full time at the Muskie head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. Benz. Not at that time when I approached her. 

Senator Montoya. Did she at any time ? 

Mr. Benz, Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And do you know whether or not she was being 

paid by anyone else to work in there 

Mr, Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya [continuing]. And supplementing her income 
of $75 a month? 

Mr. Benz. All I know of was this $75 a month that I gave her. 
Senator Montoya, "WHiat about Miss Eselene Frohlich? "What did 
you tell her -by way of justification for hiring her? 
Mr. Benz. Probably the same thing, Senator. 
Senator Montoya, And how long did she work in the Jackson 
campaign ? 

Mr. Benz. A few months or so. Senator, 
Senator Montoya, She was being paid $50 a month ? 
Mr, Benz, That is correct. 

Senator Montoya. Was she a vounteer in the Jackson campaign ? 
Mr. Benz. That is correct 

Senator Montoya. Now, is it your feeling that in view of what you 
have done, that you have let go of your dignity and decency as an 
individual ? 
Mr. Benz. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Have you done anything to restore it since you 
performed these acts in the political campaign? 

Mr. Benz. I had not known that I lost it, Senator. 
Senator Montoya. You feel that you have not ? 
Mr. Benz. That is correct. 

Senator Montoya. You feel that you have done the proper thing? 
Mr. Benz. I felt like I did what I should do. 

Senator Montoya, And as you look back in retrospect you still say 
that you did the right thing ? 

Mr. Benz. Not the right thing. Senator. 
Senator Montoya. Or the proper thing? 

Mr, Benz, It was not the proper thing, it was a thing that I felt that 
I should do. 

Senator Montoya, Thank you, Mr, Chairman, 
Senator Erven, Senator Weicker, 

Senator Weicker, Do you think that Congressman Cramer lost the 
1970 election because of Democratic dirty tricks ? 
Mr, Benz, No, sir. 

Senator Weicker, Do you think he lost the election because of a bad 
split in the Kepublican Party in Florida ? 

Mr. Benz. That probably contributed to the loss. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. WTiat contributed to the loss ? 

Mr. Benz. Excuse me? 

Senator Weicker. The split in the Republican Party? 


Mr. Bexz. I believe that was one of the factors. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Xot Democratic dirty tricks? 

Mr. Bexz. I think that there were — I believe the Democratic dirty 
tricks was in the area of that split. 

Senator AVeicker. You think they were responsible for his loss? 

Mr. Bexz. Xot completely. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Well, which is it? You initially said "Xo" and 
now you say "not completely."' 

Mr. Bexz. I believe that the split between Eepublican politics dur- 
ing 1970 was a contributing factor. I also belie\-e that the dirty tricks 
was a contributing factor in the split. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Let me just ask you one last question. 
AVhile you were doing these things which you have testified to, did you 
enjoy doing them at that time ? 

Mr. Bex'^z. Some of them I did. Some of them I thought were 

Senator Weicker. Would it be improper for me to suggest then, that 
the reason for doing these things was the fact that you eiijoyed doing 
them rather than 

Mr. Bexz. Xo, sir. 

Senator Weicker [continuing]. Than the higher motive than can 
relate to the Eepublican Party? 

Mr. Bexz. Xo, sir. 

Senator Weicker. I still fail to find any reason, based in 1070, on 
your actions on the fact situation at that time, to go ahead and have 
that as your justification and, very- frankly, I think I know Republi- 
cans of iFlorida fairly well, and certainly the Senator who sits with me 
on this committee, he certainly does not subscribe to what you throw 
out here and I am certain tlie people that I know in Florida would not 

I have no further questions, Senator. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. I apologize to you and to the com- 
mittee that other Senate business has required me to be in other com- 
mittees today. I haven't had a chance to follow the testimony of this 
witness, and rather than prolong the proceedings by trying to pick up 
the speed on what has already been asked and run the risk of I'epeti- 
tion, I will forego my opportunity to question him. 

Senator Er\t;x. I have one last question I would like to ask him. 

Is it fair to infer from your testimony that you believe that the way 
to clean up politics is to make it more filthy ? 

Mr. Bexz. Xo, sir. I believe I stated before the way that I felt would 
be the proper start. Senator. 

Senator Ervix. Well, I just didn't know whether it was fair to infer 
that from your testimony or not and I wanted to have your view 
whether it was. 

I have no further questions. 

Do you haA'e an}i:liing further you want to say ? 

Mr. Bex'^z. Xo, sir. 

Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until Tuesday 
morning at 10 o'clock. 

[Wliereupon, at 3 :47 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a.m., Tuesday, October 9, 1973.] 


U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ B.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :15 a.m., in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., 

Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 
Gurney, and Weicker. 

Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred 
D. Thompson, minority counsel : Rufus L. Eclmisten. deputy chief 
counsel; Jed Johnson, investigator; Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief 
counsel : Marc Lackritz. Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, 
assistant majority counsels; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority coun- 
sel ; Howarcl S. Liebengood. Michael J. Madigan. and Robert Silver- 
stein, assistant minority counsels: Pauline O. Dement, research assist- 
ant : Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye : Bruce Jaques. Jr.. office 
of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker: 
A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator AVeicker: John "Walz. publica- 
tions clei'k. 

Senator Baker [presiding]. The committee will come to order. The 
chairman has been unavoidably detained and will be here shortly. 
Senator Inouye asked me to indicate that the Commerce Committee is 
in executive session today and that he has the responsibility for a num- 
ber of bills that are being considered in that session. 

The chairman should be here Avithin the next 1.5 to 30 minutes and 
at that time I will have to leave in order to manage amendments to 
the strip mine bill on the floor of the Senate. The witness has now 
arrived and before we proceed with that. I understand counsel has 
an affidavit that he wishes to present for the record at this time. 

Afr. Dash. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In accordance with our rule 26 which 
reads that any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically 
identified and wlio believes the testimony or other evidence pre- 
sented at a public hearing or comment made liy the committee member 
or counsel tends to defame or otherwise adversely affect his reputation 
may either request to appear personally or file a sworn affidavit of fact 
relevant to the testimony, Mr. Mitchell Rogovin. counsel for the In- 
stitute of Policv Studies, has under this rule submitted an affida\dt 
which I Avould like. Mr. Vice Chairman, to read into the record. It is 
an affidavit of Mitchell Rogovin. made in the city of Washington, 
District of Columbia. 

Mitchell Rogovin, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

1. I am a partner in the law firm of Arnold and Porter. 1229 19th Street. 
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20036. a member of the Bar of the District of 


21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 5 


Columbia, and general counsel to the Institute for Policy Studies ("the 

2. The Institute is a nonprofit District of Columbia corporation which is 
exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1954 as a charitable and educational organization, and which 
is not a "private foundation" under the Code. The Institute engages in research 
into public policy matters and is engaged in the training and education of indi- 
viduals through its Ph. D. program. The Institute engages in no "political 
activities" that are forbidden under the Internal Revenue laws. 

3. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Cam- 
paign Activities on Wednesday, September 26, 1973, Mr. Patrick Buchanan, in 
the course of his testimony, made several false allegations concerning the 

4. In his testimony, Mr. Buchanan stated that the Ford Foundation "provides 
funds" for the Institute for Policy Studies, that the Institute was a "beneficiary 
of Ford Money," and that the Institute, "of course, is Ford-funded." Mr. Buchanan 
sought to leave the impression that the Institute's funding has come primarily 
or in large part from the Ford Foundation. 

5. In fact, the only funds the Institute has received from the Ford Founda- 
tion consisted of a 1-year grant of $7,800 received in 1964 for the specific purpose 
of holding seminars on the subject of the Alliance for Progress. This grant was 
a very minor source of funding for the Institute. 

6. Mr. Buchanan stated that the Institute "holds seminars for Congres.smen, 
for staffers, and the like, and they [the Institute] deal in trying to influence 
Congressmen and the like to vote in one direction." 

'7. In fact, the Institute has held conferences and seminars which have been 
attended by, among others. Congressmen and their assistants, but at no time 
has the Institute attempted to influence the votes of Congressmen. 

8. Mr. Buchanan asserted that the Institute "funded the Quicksilver Times," 
which he de.scribed as a "radical underground newspaper, which has a political 
point of view and which is sold for profit." Mr. Buchanan stated further that 
since he was familiar with the Quicksilver Times as a "commercial venture, it 
would seem to me that this [alleged funding by the Institute] would be an 
Illicit use of tax-exempt funds." In the same sentence, Mr. Buchanan imj)lied 
that the Institute had used Ford Foundation money to fund the Quicksilver 

9. In fact, the Institute has never funded the Quicksilver Times. To the best of 
my knowledge and belief, the Washingtonian magazine article cited by Mr. 
Buchanan does not state that the Institute ever funded the Quicksilver Times. 

10. The names of the Institute for Policy Studies and its Codirectors. Marcus 
Raskin and Richard Barnet, have been mentioned in the course of the hearings 
before the Senate Select Committee in connection with the so-called list of 
"enemies" of the Administration, against whom certain Administration ofiicials 
urged that the resources of various government agencies be applied. In addition, 
an exhibit referred to during Air. Ehrlichman's testimony, the Krogh-Young 
memo to Ehrlichman of August 11, 1971, indicates that both Raskin and Barnet 
were "overheard." 

11. The Institute has been the subject of an audit by the Internal Revenue 
Service ever since the Nixon administration took oflice. The latest audit began 
in January of 1970, apparently as part of the IRS "Special Service Group" 
program. The scope and nature of the audit can hardly be described as routine. 

12. At present, the Internal Revenue Service, using quite unusual procedures, 
has proposed to revoke the Institute's tax exemption. The grounds for revoca- 
tion do not include any of the alleged activities mentioned by Mr. Buchanan, 
but rather concern charitable and educational activities of the Institute which 
are indistinguishable from the activities of other institutions of higher learning 
in the United States, but which do involve viewpoints differing sharply from 
those of the administration. 

13. It appears that the Internal Revenue Service in this case has not followed 
Mr. Buchanan's profes.sed belief that educational organizations which study 
social issues Init whifh do not engage in political activities should be permitted 
to maintain their tax exemption regardless of whether they are considered 
"liberal" or "conservative." 

14. The Institute has learned from a former FBI informant that the FBI on 
several occasions has infiltrated the Institute for Policy Studies with agents 
and informants and on at least one occasion joined with a member of the Metro- 
politan Police Department in the theft of documents from the Institute. 


15. We have also been advised by a former special agent of the FBI that the 
FBI has improperly secured the bank records of the Institute without the use 
of legal process. 

16. The Institute has evidence of illegal surveillance of the Institute by gov- 
ernmental agencies by means of wiretapping, electronic surveillance, and breaking 
and entering. 

17. Represeut^itives of the Institute will be able to supply you with further 
details of these activities. Signed Mitchell Rogovin, subscribed and sworn to 
before me this 3d day of October, 1973 ; Lois M. Clementz, Notary Public. 

Senator Baker. The affidavit will be received as a part of the record 
under rule 6 of the committee's standing rules. The Chair would in- 
dicate that since the affidavit as in the case of all affidavits is not sub- 
ject to cross-examination and since from the reading of it, it would 
appear that some information is based on other sources, if any member 
of the committee desires other information or to proceed with the 
matter further, of course, imder the standing rules of the committee 
we would pursue that in whatever manner seemed appropriate. If 
there is no objection then the affidavit, as read, will be made part of 
the record. 

Our fii'st witness this morning has arrived and if he Avould hold up 
his right hand I will administer the oath before we proceed with 
the matter of immunity order. 

Would you please state your name ? 

Mr. Buckley. John R. Buckley. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Buckley, do you solemnly SAvear that the tes- 
timony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, 
the Avhole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

^Mr. Buckley. I do. 

Senator Baker. You may be seated. 

Mr. Buckley, we have before us a certified copy of an order over 
the signature of Judge John J. Sirica, chief judge of the I^.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia filed October 9, 1978, and bear- 
ing docket number miscellaneous 70-7-3 entitled "In the Matter of 
the Ap])lication of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities." 

This oi'der confers use immunity on the application of this com- 
mittee under the I'elevant sections of the United States Code, particu- 
lai-ly title 18. sections 6002 and 0005, and the mandate of the order is 
that you, the witness, in accordance with those provisions shall not 
be excused from testifying or providing other information before the 
committee on the ground that the testimony or other information 
sought may tend to incriminate you. 

If there is no objection on the part of the committee the order of 
immunity will be incorporated in the record as part of our official 

Mr. Witness, do you understand the nature and intendment of 
that order? 

Mr. Buckley. I do. 


Senator Baker. Very Avell, would counsel then proceed with the 
examination of the witness ? 
Mr. Dash. Yes, Senator Baker. 


Mr. Rufiis Edmisteii, deputy cliief coimsol, will initially question 
the witness. 

Mr. Ed:mistex. Mr. Buckley, for the record, please state your name 
and address. 

Mr. Buckley. John K. Buckley, 13410 Grenol)le Drive, Rockville, 

Mr, Edmisten. You are represented by counsel. "Would counsel iden- 
tify himself? 

]\Ir. Wood. ]\Iy name is Kenneth T). Wood, and I am a member of 
the District of Columbia Bar. 

Mr. Edmisten. INIr. Buckley, what is your present employment 
status ? 

Mr. Buckley. I am retired. 

Mr. Edmistex. When did you first beofin Government service? 

Mr. Buckley. I had Go\ermnent service in the Xavy during- World 
War 11. 

Mr. Edmisten. What agency did you first work for in the Federal 
Government ? 

Mr. Buckley. The FBI. 

Mr. Ediviisten. When did you retire ? 

Mr. Buckley. In 19 — this year, June 80. 

Mr. Edmisten. Then you were employed where ? 

Mr. Buckley. After I retired ? 

Mr. Edmisten. After retirement from the FBI ? 

Mr. Buckley. I have no employment at the present time. I have 

Mr. Edmisten. No ; after you retired from the FBI ? 

Mr. Buckley. I resigned from the FBI in 1964. 

Mr. Edmisten. And then you were employed where? 

Mr. Buckley. For a period of about a year I was self-employed in 
the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Edmisten. Then you were employed where after that? 

INIr. BucKi>EY. After that I was employed by the House Education 
and Labor Committee, House of Representatives. 

Mr. Edmisten. In what capacity there, what were your functions, 
your duties? 

Mr. Buckley. I was chief investigator for the minority of that 
committee, and had duties as counsel on poverty matters. 

Mr. Edmisten. Xow, when you left the House conunittee in 1969,Mr. 
Buckley, where were you employed then? 

IVIr. Buckley. I then went to the Office of Economic Opportunity as 
the director of the inspection division. 

Mr. Edmisten. How did you obtain your job there? 

Mr. Buckley. It was an appointment l)y the director, then Donald 

Mr. Edmisten. Had he known you before ? 

Mr. Buckley. He had known me by virtue of two or three contacts 
in the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, what were your duties at OEO ? 
Mr. Buckley. I supervised a squad of 80 to 50 inspectors and sup- 
porting staff in inspections and investigations of irregularities and 
noncompliance of OEO guidelines, in grantee contract programs. 

Mr. Edmisten. And that, then, involved a good deal of investigative 
work and I am sure you drew upon your former work as an investiga- 
tor there. 


Mr. Buckley. Yes. 

Mr. Edmisten. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Buckley. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now that certainly could be called a full-time job, 
could it not, Mr. Buckley ? 

Mr. Buckley, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edmisten. When did you leave the OEO ? 

Mr. Buckley. June 80, 1973. 

Mr. Edmisten. What was your reason for leaving? 

Mr. Buckley, I was retired. 

Mr. Edmisten. Xow, Mr. Buckley, during the years between your 
retirement from the FBI and your employment by the OEO, I think 
the recoi'd sliows — at least your interview shows that you worked for 
several political campaigns. One of them, I believe, was Mr. Cecil 
Underwood's campaign in Wiji for Governor of West Virginia. 

Mr. Buckley. That is right. 

Mr. Edmisten. What did you do in that campaign? 

Mr, Bi'CKLEY, I was involved in investigating situations in West 
Virginia for the Republican candidate for governor. 

Mr. Edmisten. I think we noted that you also worked for a guber- 
natorial campaign in North Carolina, Mr. Jim Gardner. 

Mr. Buckley. I did. 

Mr. Edmisten. What did you do for Mr. Gardner? 

Mr. Buckley. In 1968, on September 2 and very previous occasions, 
I investigated allegations that Mr. Gardner was concerned about. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did Mr. Gardner ask you to go to North Carolina? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Edmisten. Were you employed at that time by the House com- 

Mr, Buckley. I was. 

Mr. Edmisten. I take it this was on your own time ? 

Mr. Buckley. It was. It involved 2 weekends, with probably a 
Friday or a Monday connected with each. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did you investigate in North Carolina ? 

Mr. Buckley. I investigated, and documented a situation in a State 
institution for juveniles involving a rape of one of the inmates by the 
counselors in the institution. 

Mr. Edmisten. When did you do another investigation ? 

Mr. Buckley. Subsequently, after the election, we examined voting 
registrations and voting in tlie Durham, N.C., area. 

Mr. Edmisten. And Mr. Buckley, during the course of your employ- 
ment witli tlie House committee, did you meet a man named Kenneth 
Rietz ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Edmisten. What was your association with Mr. Rietz at that 
time ? 

Mr, Buckley, I first met Ken Rietz in probably January of 1967 
and he at that time was an aide to a Congressman who was on the Ed- 
ucation and Labor Committee and had an office directly near mine. 

Mr. Ed:misten. "\^^iat was the basis of your continued i-elationship 
with Mr. Rietz during the House — did you see him often ? Were you 
well acquainted with him ? Was he a friend or wdiat ? 

Mr. Buckley. In connection with committee business, I would have 
occasion to see Mr. Rietz and his Congressman several times during the 


session in consideration of manpower and poverty bills, bills nnder 
the jurisdiction of the House Education and Labor Comniittee. 

^iv. Edmistex. Now. did you receive a call from Mr. Ken Rietz in 
late J\i\y or early Anj^ust of 1971 ? 

Mr. l^ucKLEY. Yes, sir. 

yiv. Edmistkx. AYhy did he call you ? 

Mr. Buckley. He called me to extend an invitation to go to lunch. 

]\Iv. Edmistex. Did you <ro to hnich ? 

]Mr. Buckley. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Edmistex". You had a discussion with him. What did he ask 
of you or tell you at that luncheon ? 

]\rr. Buckley. He indicated at that time that he was in charj^e of 
youth activity, the youth vote, for the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President and in addition to that, he had a responsibility to determine, 
as far as lie could, the location and cjenoral activities of Senator Mus- 
kie's cam]>aio;u headquarters. 

Mr. EoMiSTEX'. Xow. ]Mr. Buckley, you just mentioned that ^Ir. 
Rietz had known you in the House. Why you, of all people, would Mr. 
Rietz call you ancl ask you to help formulate a plan, knowing full well 
that you were employed at OEO. Wliat basis did he have to call you 
and ask for your assistance ^ 

^Ir. Buckley. T cannot speak for Mr. Rietz. but I Avould assume that 
he was familiar with my background as an investigator and that we 
had at one time or another a discussion of political campaigns or polit- 
ical investigations. 

Mr. En:\risTEX'. You said that ^[r. Rietz asked you to come up with 
some proposals or a plan. Did you come up with a plan ? 

^Ir. Buckley. He asked me if I Avould help him ascertain where the 
Muskie headquarters were, who the volunteers, what the staff was, who 
comprised the statf , and generally what the candidates itinerary would 
be in the ensuing months. 

Mr. Edmistex'. Did you formulate a plan to help him do that ? 

^Ir. Buckley. Xot at that time. T suggested that there were many 
standard ways that one gets a volunteer into an opponent's campaign 
and suggested that a clerk or a stenographer or a member of the press 
or one posing as a member of the press would very easily ascertain 
the things that he ^yas interested in, most of which T considered to be 
public information. 

Mr. En^riSTEx-. But did Mr. Rietz think those proposals were good 
plans, without planting a press person or campaign aide ? 

^Ir. Buckley. I do not believe at that point that anything specific 
was suggested. He indicated that something of that nature might be 

^Ir. Edmtstex. Did von finally come up with a definite plan for 
Mr. Rietz? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Edmistex'. What was that plan? 

'Sir. Buckley. Subsequent to that meeting, there appeai-ed in a local 
newspaper a column indicating that Senator Humphrey had had two 
taxicab rides on a particular day and neither of the cab drivei-s would 
accept a fare from him. That appears, if I may, in the September 27 
issue of the Wasliington Star. 

Mr. Edmistex. 1971 ? 


Mr. Buckley. 1971. 

Mr. Edmistex. Written by Mr. Morris Siegel ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Edmistex. Mr. Chairman, the A^itness has identified the docu- 
ment. I would like to have it included in the record. 

Senator Ekvix [presiding]. "Without objection, the article will be 
received as an exhibit and appropriately numbered as such. 

[The article referred to was marked exhibit Xo. 227.*] 

Mr. Edmistex. I will read this article. It says : 

On the other hand, Hubert H. Humphrey, who, incidentally, didn't make it 
working with Bob Short either, apparently doesn't miss anything that went with 
being Xo. 2 except his chauffeur-driven car, if he misses that. He cabbed it over 
to a luncheon with editors the other day and once the hack driver discovered who 
his distinguished pa.«senger was he wouldn't accept any money for the fare. "No 
way, Senator. I'm gonna take any money from you. You ought to be President," 
he said proudly when Humphrey offered him money. On the return trip to Capitol 
Hill. Humphrey got into another cab and it was the same story all over again. 
Now. if somebody will come along and offer Humphrey an airplane ride in a rea- 
sonable facsimile of Air Force One, he might not even miss being President. 

Is that what prompted you to come up with your plan ? 

Mr. Buckley. That suggCvSted something to me. 

Mr. En^nsTEX. All right. Xow. did Mr. Rietz approve of that plan ? 

Mr. Buckley. Well. I had not drawn the plan for him- at that time. 
I had been acquainted for years with a semiretired cabdriver who 
was interested in some kind of employment that would give liim a 
weekly wage and I discussed with him the possibility of his volunteer- 
ing in the campaign committee of Senator Muskie and he suggested 
that he would, and Rietz approved the plan suV>sequently. 

Mr. Eo^nsTEX. Who was this calxiriver? IdentifA' him. please. Wliat 
Avas his name ? 

Mr. Buckley. May I speak with counsel, please? [Conferring with 

Mr. Chairman, we have identified the name of this cabdriver on 
at least two or three occasions to the members of your staff. Would the 
committee consider witliliolding his name from public identification 
at this point? 

Mr. En^nsTEX. It is rather general knowledge. Mr. Chairman. I 
think it has been printed in several papers. 

Senator ER^^x. Well. I think the committee would be disinclined 
to suppress any truth at all in this investigation, even if the truth 
might prove embarrassing to somebody. 

Mr. Buckley. I mention that Ijecause this man is of advanced age. 
He has been ill and that is the reason that I request it. 

Senator ER^^x. Well. I s^-mpathize with him. but I do not know 
any reason why the conunittee should suppress the truth. 

Mr. Edmistex. Would vou identify- the cabdriver's name. Air 

Mr. Buckley. His name is Elmer Wyatt. 

^^^^- Ed:mtstex. How did you become acquainted with Mr. Elmer 
\\ yatt? 

'Sir. Buckley. I had known hirn for a prior .> or 6 vears. havino- seen 
him on some occasions, having used his cab on other occasions for 
transportation in the District. 

•Seep. 4697. 


Mr. Edmisten. Was ISIr. Wyatt anxious to help you carry out your 
plan ? 

Mr. Buckley. He was willing. 

Mr. Edmisten. Have you ever done any investigative work using 
Mr. Wyatt before, Mr. Buckley ? 

Mr. Buckley. I hadn't done any investigative w^ork using him as 
an aide ; no, I had not. 

Mr. Edmisten. All right. You contacted Mr. Wyatt and you told him 
the plan and you had approval from Mr. Ken Rietz ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, what were the terms agreed upon, the amount 
of payment? What did you tell Mr. Wyatt you would pay him? 

Mr. Buckley. If I may, at the initial meeting with Mr. Rietz, we dis- 
cussed if a full-time volunteer was to be utilized for the purposes of 
reporting back to us that we would certainly expect to pay them a 
weekly salary, I estimated that to get any of the people that occurred 
to me on the first meeting, it would take between $150 and $200 a 
week. At that time, he wondered if $1,000 a month would cover the 
whole thing and I expressed my thought that it would. 

Mr. Edmisten. All right, so you were given assurances by Mr. 
Ken Rietz, of the Commitee To Re-Elect the President that you 
would get $1,000 a month to take care of the program? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes; providing it was successful and providing it 
could be continued or was feasible. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, how did Mr. Wyatt work himself into the 
Muskie organization? Did he just walk in the door or what? 

Mr. Buckley. He walked into the Muskie campaign headquarters 
with the newspaper article and suggested to the person in charge of 
volunteers there that if cabdrivers could do it for Senator Humphrey, 
he would be willing to spend some time each day running errands' for 
the Muskie campaign people. 

Mr. Edmisten. Was he successful ? Was he accepted as a volunteer 
for the organization ? 

Mr. Buckley. He was. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, shortly after he began working with the Muskie 
organization, what was he doing? What job did he get? 

Mr. Buckley. He did a number of things, from what he told me. 
He took clothes to the cleaners and he took packages to the stationery 
store and things of that nature. But one assignment that was to become 
more or less regularly his was to carry messages from the Muskie 
campaign headquarters to the Senator's office on Capitol Hill. 

Mr. Edmisten. So he would gather up, you say messages. I suppose 
that includes documents, letters, press releases, things of that nature, 
and place them in some container and carry them from Muskie's 
headquarters here to the Senate ? 

Mr. Buckley. That is generally accurate. 

Mr. EnivnsTEN. Did you make an arrangement with him that he 
would call you after receiving the Muskie documents down there 
and let you look at them ? 

Mr. Buckley. This, of course, took several weeks, probably 2 or 
3 weeks, to begin this. An arrangement was made whereby he would 
call me when he was leaving the campaign headquarters and tell me 
that he was en route with a box of memorandums. Now, this would 


require several things. It would require, No. 1, that he went in that 
day. It would require that there was not someone accompanying 
him, as frequently happened; that it not be raining, because the 
papers then would be wet; and that I be available. I frequently was 
not available when he called, and other times, would be involved in 
agency business and could not meet him. 

Mr. Edmisten. So Mr. Wyatt would call you when you were avail- 
able. Would he tell you to meet him somewhere ? 
Mr. Buckley. Meet him on the corner, on a nearby corner. 
Mr. Edmisten. What would you do ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would proceed to meet him at 19th and L or 20th 

Mr. Edmisten. And then you proceeded to do what ? 
Mr. Buckley. Then we would drive for a couple of blocks and I 
proceeded to look at the memorandums that were in the box. 

Mr. Edmisten. All right. After you looked at the memorandums 
and you determined that you might want some of them what did 
you do then ? 

Mr. Buckley. I tried unsuccessfully for one or two of these meet- 
ings to photograph itineraries ftnd memorandums that were in the 
box. It was not a successful effort. The light was inappropriate, my 
equipment was not suitable. 

Mr. Edmisten. Where were you attempting to do this photograph- 
ing, in the car ? 

Mr. Buckley. In the back seat of the taxi. 

Mr. Edmisten. Well, that was rather awkward, was it not? 

Mr. Buckley. I don't understand. Awkward in what way ? 

Mr. Edmisten. Awkward to get the job done. 

Mr. Buckley. It certainly was not suitable. It didn't get the job 

Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Buckley, at any time, did you have to open any 
envelopes to procure the documents that you wanted ? 

Mr. Buckley. No sir. One of the rules that we had from the time 
we started, and one of the rules that I made clear to Rietz and the 
cabdriver, was that at no time would any mail or any envelopes be 
delayed or be handled or be tampered with in any fashion. And 
they weren't. 

Mr. Edmisten. You just described having difficulty making photo- 
graphs of the materials in the back of the car and different places. 

What did you do to try to improve your operation? 

Mr. Buckley. Subsequently, I rented an office which was located 
near the Muskie campaign committee and at about the same time, I 
purchased some new equipment and some lights which would be more 
effective in document copying. 

Mr. Edmisten. Where was this office ? 

Mr. Buckley. It was at 1026 I7th Street, NW. 

Mr. Edmisten. From whom did you rent that office ? 

Mr. Buckley. I rented that from the managing company that was 
on the ground floor. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did they ask you what you wanted it for? 

Mr. Buckley, No, I rented it in my own name as an attorney. 

INIr. Edmisten. OK. Now, we have some equipment over here that 
we would like to show you. If you could describe to the committee how 
your operation went, it would be helpful. 


Mr. Buckley, did you purchase this equipment from a commercial 
camera shop ? 

]\Ir. Buckley. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Edmisten. Which camera shop ? 

Mr. Buckley. I purchased it at the Penn Camera Shop on 10th 
Street, I believe, 10th or 11th. 

Mr. Edmisten. Do you have an invoice copy dated October 22, 1971 ? 

Mr. Buckley. We do. 

Mr. Edmistex. Do you ao:ree that this is an invoice copy describing 
that equipment ? 

Mr. Buckley. I agree that it is. 

Mr. Edmistex. !Mr. Chairman, could we have this placed in the 
record, since the witness has identified it ? 

Senator Ervix. If there is no objection, the document will be re- 
ceived in evidence as an exhibit and appropriately marked as such. 

[The document referred to was marked exhibit Xo. 228.*] 

Mr. Edmistex. What is the total price, by the way, of the equip- 
ment vou purchased at Penn Central ? 

Mr." Buckley. $41 3.70. 

Mr. Edmistex. Does that include all the equipment there ? 

Mr. Buckley. That is on the sheet '^ 

Mr, Edmistex. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. No ; there are a couple of pieces that aren't on here. 

These are not on here. This is an enlarge r, and this is a developing 
ta]ik. They are not on the list. 

The list includes a stand and a camera and some film. 

Mr. Edmisten. Where did you get the money to purchase that 
equipment ? 

INIr. Buckley. I used some money that was given to me by Rietz on 
a monthly basis to purchase this. 

Mr. Edmistex. All right, describe your operation for us. Mr. Wyatt 
would brinir in the material and vou would rush up to the room, I 
take it? ■ 

]Mr. Buckley. He would bring in the material in a box that looked 
to me like it was a stationery — an empty stationery box ; the mate- 
rial was o]:)en in this fashion, was stacked in the box, thrown into the 
box, like this. The stationery box might include ])ress releases, itiner- 
ary, internal memorandums, or perhaps drafts for speeches, maybe, 
or position drafts, 

INIr. Ediniistex. Well, I suppose at times, there were letters typed up 
for Senator Muskie's signature which were not enclosed in an en- 
velope and you thereby could make photographs of that particular 

iVfr. Buckley. There could have been, I would have thought that 
they were in draft form, too. There were no letters that were signed 
or stamped or anything of that nature. 

Mr. Ed^iistex. Did yon run across a list of conti'ibutors at times? 

Mr. Buckley. No ; I d' /u't recall that T did. 

Mr. Edmistex. Did you ever run across a list of people who visited 
the INIuskie headquarters? 

^Ir. Buckley. No, sir. 

Mr. Ediniistex. After you would receive the box of material and 
you would go through it and determine what was relevant to your 
purposes, how did you use that machine ? 

*See p. 4698. 


Mr. Buckley. There would be times when there was nothing rele- 
vant in the box and we wouldn't take any pictures. 

This is a camera, of course, this is a copy stand. These lights light 
up the base of it. A document in this fasliion would be photographed 
thusly [indicating]. 

Mr. Edmistex. All right. After taking the film, would you develop 
it yourself i? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, I would. 

Mr. EoansTEN. Where? 

JSIr. Buckley. I woidd develop it at hoane. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, once the film was developed, what did you do 
with it? 

Mr. Buckley. Once the film was developed, I would deliver it to 
Ken Eietz and subsequently to another individual. 

Mr. Edmistex. Now, how did you arrange to meet Mr. Rietz and 
where did you meet him? 

Mr. Buckley. I would call Rietz every 9 or 10 days, when I had a 
roll of film or two rolls of film, and I would tell him that I had some 
film for him and Avould deliver it to him at a comer near the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. Edmtstex. Do you recall what that corner was ? 

Mr. Buckley. It was different corners. It was 17th and Pennsylvania, 
18tli and Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Edmistex. In turn, did Mr. Rietz turn over money to you for 
your services when you would deliver the film to him ? 

Mr. Buckley. Once a month. 

Mr. Edmistex. Did he ever discuss with von what he was going to 
do Avitli that film ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, he did not. 

Mr. Edmistex. Do you have any idea what he was doing with it? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not. He mentioned on one occasion early that 
there was someone assigned to analyze the material, and I do not 
know who that someone was. 

Mr. Edmistex. Finally, did Mr. Rietz start appearing late and seem 
somewhat uninterested in your material? 

]\Ir. Buckley. Almost from the first. He was late, there were occa- 
sions he did not come, to the point that I discussed it with him and told 
him that if he couldn't be punctual, I wasn't going to continue with it. 

Mr. Ed:mistex. All right, vou gave him an ultimatum, if he did 
not show up he was going to have to get somebody else, is that right? 

ISIr. Buckley. That is right. 

Mr. Edmistex. W1\o did show up ? 

Mr. Buckley. He indicated shortly after that that there would be 
someone else who would be contacting me. that the someone else was 
a man by the name of Ed "Warren, and that the first meeting he would 
meet me in front of the Roger Smith Hotel at ISth and Pennsylvania 

Mr. Edmistex. Did you meet with Mr. Ed Warren? 

IVIr. Buckley. I did. 

Mr. Ed:mistex. Did you have anv idea who he was ? 

Mr. Buckley. I did not at the time. I subsequently recognized, after 
the Watergate arrests and pictures of Howard Hunt were in the paper 
that he was the individual that I had been meeting with during the 
months in 1972. 


Mr. Edmisten. How many times do you figure you met with Mr. Ed 
Warren ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would estimate twice or three times a month for 
about 4 months. 

Mr. Edmisten. How did you identify yourself to Mr. Ed Warren? 

Mr. Buckley. I identified myself to him under an assumed name, I 
used the name Jack Kent. 

Mr. Edmisten. Jack Kent ? 

Mr. Buckley. K-e-n-t. 

Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Hunt was on the witness stand the other day 
and he referred to you as "Fat Jack." How did that come about? 

Mr. Buckley. I have no idea. I never heard that name until a month 
or 6 weeks ago, until Mr. Rietz in a conversation told me that they re- 
ferred to me, they, meaning Hunt, I suppose, and others as Fat Jack, 
that was the first time I heard of it. 

Mr. Edmisten. So your assumed name was Jack Kent? 

Mr. Buckley. That is right. 

Mr. Edmisten. Why did you pick that name? 

Mr. Buckley. I can only guess that Kent cigarettes suggested it to 
me. I had no reason to select it. 

Mr. Edmisten. Describe your meetings with Mr. Warren. Did you 
talk a good deal with him or what transpired? Did you just take him 
the film and walk away or not ? 

Mr. Buckley. No; they were very formal or very short. I do not 
think he trusted me completely and I did not trust him. It was merely 
a matter of delivering the envelope and setting the day. No coffee, no 
conversation of any length at all. 

Mr. Edmisten. It might be described then as a meeting of two spies 
who did not really trust one another ? 

Mr. Buckley. I suspect so. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, could we move that material, I mean, 
it is impressive equipment, I am sure, but I cannot see the witness. 

Mr. Dash. We are through with it. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, after you had met with Mr. Ken 
Rietz for a while, you met with Mr. Warren for a while. When did 
the project finally terminate, and what caused it to terminate? 

Mr. Buckley. The project terminated when Senator Muskie an- 
nounced his withdrawal from the race — ^the nomination — and to the 
best of my recollection, it was in April of 1972, and it had for previous 
weeks sort of dwindled, our activity and his interest decreased as the 
position of Senator Muskie became worse or it became more apparent 
that he would not be the successful nominee. 

Mr. Edmisten. How were you notified that you were to cease your 
operations ? 

Mr. Buckley. We had discussed it as the primaries developed and 
indicated that we would terminate if Senator Muskie withdrew. 

Mr. Edmisten. After Senator Muskie fell in the polls, were you 
asked to infiltrate the McGovern campaign in the same manner? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I was not. 

Mr. Edmisten. All right. Thereafter, Mr. Buckley, did you per- 
form any other services for the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Mr. Edmisten. Have you since that time ? 


Mr. Buckley. I do not think so. 

Mr. P]dmistex. "What did Mr. Wyatt, the cabdriver, do following 
his termination ? 

Mr. Buckley. He was not active in that any longer. I assumed that 
he resumed his taxi business. 

Mr. Edmisten. Have you talked to him since that time? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Edmisten. Do you know that Mr. Wyatt had an interview with 
the staff of the committee ? 

Mr. Buckley. I knew that — I became aware that the staff of the 
committee interviewed him early this summer. I did not become aware 
of it until after he had been interviewed, and he did call me that night 
and told me that he had been subpenaed and that he had talked to a 
staff member and that he denied any involvement in any of this 

Mr. Edmisten. Did he tell you though, later that he did come back 
and substantiate everything you said ? 

Mr. Buckley. He told me before he came back later that he was 
asked to come back. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, when you were working at the 
OEO you had a rather high position down there. Did anyone at the 
OEO know about any of your activities at any time regarding this? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not think so. I am quite sure they did not. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did they discover after the activity had occurred 
and was maybe brought to their attention ? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not think so, probably in the light of the recent 

Mr. Edmisten. You said you retired yourself, so this activity had 
nothing to do with your leaving OEO ? 

Mr. Blxkley. No, sir. 

Mr. Edmisten. How was it possible for you to be absent on those 
occasions from your office without some word of explanation? 

Mr. Buckley. The meetings involved — at the most about 35 to 
40 minutes. We had a rule we would not be together for more than 15 
minutes, the location was 6 or 7 minutes from my office building and 
it coincided with the lunch hour. It happened usually and most always 
between 11 and 12 o'clock. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now the calls that you had received from Mr. Wyatt 
and from Mr, Rietz, did they cause anybody any concern at your 

INIr. Buckley. I have never heard anyone express concern. 

Rietz' calls would be very infrequent. The Wyatt calls would, I am 
sure, happen a couple of times a week. 

Mr. Edmisten. I believe you indicated in your interview with the 
staff, Mr. Buckley, you were given around $8,000 for this operation ? 

IMr. Buckley. I base that on my recollection that we were involved 
about 7 or 8 months. If it was 7 months it would be $7,000, if it were 
8 months it would be $8,000. 

Mr. Edmisten. Wliy don't you break that down to the committee ? 
What happened to that money ? 

Mr. Buckley. The money substantially went to the cabdriver. He 
received what money was not spent on equipment and film and ex- 
penses of that kind. In the early weeks, in light of the equipment pur- 


chases, he was given $150 a week. [Conferring with counsel.] And I 
when the equipment had been purchased he was then given $175 a week, i 
and the rental of the office space was $100 a month. 

Mr. Edmisten. All right. So you are testifying that you did not 
benefit one iota from any of this activity ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, not any money to me. It is my recollection 
there were times when I spent some of mj^ money in the operation. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, let us go back to these boxes 
that you received from Mr. Elmer Wyatt. I know it is hard to recon- 
struct the details when you see lots of materials, but try to remember 
some of the documents you saw. You saw press releases, you saw 
itineraries ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes. 

Mr. Edmisiien. You saw drafts of letters, well, documents that could 
have been letters? 

Mr. Buckley. They were not signed, they were not stamped. 

Mr. Edmisten. Well, it could have been a draft, a letter prepared, 
waiting for Senator Muskie's signature ? 

Mr. Buckley. It is possible. My recollection is that they were 
rough draft letters. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did you see letters coming to Senator Muskie from 
contributors ? 

Mr. Buckley. No ; I did not. My recollection is that I did not. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did you see drafts of speeches ? 

Mr. Buckley. There were drafts and very conceivably cmild be 
speeches or releases or position papers. 

Mr. Edmisten. Well, you read them, didn't you? That was your 
purpose ? 

Mr. Buckley. I glanced through them, I did not evaluate or analyze 

Mr. Edmisten. How did you know what you were giving them if 
you didn't read this material ? 

Mr. Buckley. I did say I glanced tlirough them. If it pertained 
to an itinerary of the candidates or if it pertained to a press release 
on a particular topic, if it pertained to his position on an issue — what 
could be considered an issue, it was relevant, it was something that I 
would be interested in. If it did not, I would not photograph it. 

Mr. Edmisten. So that was your criteria ? 

Mr, Buckley. Essentially. 

Mr. Edmisten. In other words, you had to read every document 
that was in the box to determine which ones you were going to choose ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would not be argumentative with you. I did not 
read it all. It would take only a glance to determine that some of them 
would not fit into that category, any of those categories. I didn't have 
time to read a lengthy document. If it had a caption and it started 
out dealing with his itinerary it was something I was interested in. I 
would not have to read it all, 

Mr. Edmisten. Have you come upon any evidence that any of your 
material ever appeared in any newspapers, the material that vou col- 
lected ? 

Mr. Buckley. The only situation that I can respond to that is, 
it has been publicized that a Senator Muskie memo was forwarded to 
Evans and Novak and later put in their column. I do not recall see- 


ing that memo but I do recall one instance in late 1971 that the cab- 
driver indicated to me that the people at the ]Muskie campaign head- 
quarters were very much concerned and excited that an internal 
memo had been published in the paper. I feel that that probably was 
the memo but I don't recall photographing it. I conveyed my con- 
cern then to Rietz, indicating that it was not our purpose to be fur- 
nishing any internal memorandums of Senator JNIuskie to the news- 
papers or anybody else and if they were doing that with it that we 
would discontinue also. I felt 'it was an intelligence-gathering 

Mr. Edmisten. Well now, did you ever recall looking at any kind 
of a paper prepared by Senator Muskie relating to the nomination of 
Mr. William Rehnquist ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir, I recall that draft and it was a draft, it was 
double spaced. 

Mr. Edmisten. You photographed it? 

Mr. Buckley. I photographed it. 

Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, you are a very experienced man, 
you have worked for the Government a long time, and I am sure you 
are very familiar with the Hatch Act. are you not ? 

Mr. Buckley. I am somewhat familiar with it. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did you read the Hatch Act before engaging in that 
activity ? 

Mr. Buckley. I have read the Hatch Act and I read it about that 
time. It was my feeling that tlie Hatch Act, which spells out activities 
which are prohibited and spells out activities that are permitted, was 
silent in this area. I didn't feel that the Hatch Act applied. 

Mr. Edmisten. You know the Hatch Act reads that : 

It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any administrative position 
by the United States or by any Department, independent agency or other agency 
of the United States — ■ 

And I will leave out the reference to a corporation — 

to use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the 
election or nomination of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, 
and Presidential elector. 

I emphasize the word "affecting." 

Mr. Buckley. Affected or interfered with ? Whatever interpretation 
is placed on that I didn't feel that it applied to me. I could not see 
that I was interfering with the election or the nomination of Senator 

Mr. Edmisten. If you had to look back over your acti\nties, Mr. 
Buckley, do you think your activities were a waste of time? Did they 
do any good? 

Mr. Buckley. I didn't hear the last of your question. 

Mr. Edmisten. Did your activities reap any benefits for the purpose 
for which you began your activities, that is, not to affect the campaign 
of Muskie? 

Mr. Buckley. Not as far as I am concerned in light of Senator 
Muskie's not getting the nomination. Had he been successful in getting 
the nomination, I would not have felt the time was wasted. 

Mr. Edmisten. Well, what was your original purpose for engaging 
in that activity ? Was it to affect the campaign of Senator Muskie ? 

Mr. Buckley. Was it to affect his campaign ? 


Mr. Edimtsten-. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. I didn't feel tliat. My purpose was to <rf^thei' for 
Rietz and wlioever else was interested in information coneernino- Sen- 
ator INInskie's itinerary; what his position was on issues of the day 
and that type of thine:. 

Mr. Edmtsti^n. "Well, ha^-e yon lieard any woi-d about whether or 
not you were in some way helpful to ihe Committee To "Re-Elect the 

Mr. BiTCKT.EY. No, 1 haven't. 

Mr. Ed:mtstex. Do yon think it was? 

Mr. Buckley. Successfid in the 1072 election? T don't feel that it 
was helpful to the election of the lvei)ublican candidate. 

Mr. EoMTSTEN. T just sit here and wonder why you took the job. 

Mr. Buckley. T^Hiy T took the job ? 

Mr. En^riSTETsr. Yes. 

Mr. Bttkley. That never occurred to me not to. 

Mr. Edmistex. Well, would you do it acffiin ? 

Mr. Buckley. T wouldn't do it for a while. T don't think. [Lauirhter.] 

Senator Emax. T am si'oinjT to have to ask the audience to refrain 
from demonstr-atino- in any way their reaction to anythinc: which oc- 
curs in the hearino- r-oom. And I solicit their cooperation in this 

Mr. ED:\risTEX. T have one final question. Did you think you were 
helpinir the Comniittee To "Re-Elect the President ? 

Mr. Bi'CKLKV. T suppose T did. T felt that T was furnishino- a service 
to them that they needed, otherwise they wouldn't have asked me 
to. That didn't seem possible that thev didn't know where Senator 
Muskie's headquarters were because T found that, T think in 60 sec- 
onds. But that was their request. 

Mr. En:srLSTEx. Thank you. INfr. Buckley. 

T have no f m'ther questions. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ekvtn. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Tiio:srpsox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Buckley, did you have contacts with anyone else at the Com- 
mittee To Be-Elect except ]\[r. Rietz concernin<r your hirino- of the 
cabdriver ? 

INfr. Buckley. Pietz and Howard PTunt. 

Mr. TiroMPSox. Did you ever discuss the matter with Bart Poi-ter? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. T do not know the man. 

Mr. Tiio:\rrsox. Did you ever discuss the matter with Jeb ]\rai>-rudei'? 

Mr. Bi'CKLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. TiioMPSOx. I believe you indicated that when ^Nfi-. Rietz fii-st 
talked to you, he said that he had been o;iven an assi^ment. 

Did he say who had o-iven him that assijrnment ? 

Mr. BucKi>EY. No; he did not. He indicated that it was an a<lditional 
responsibility of his. 

INfr. TiioTsrpsox. Did he ever tell you who was fui'uisliinii' the money 
for the assignment? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Mr. Trro:\rpsox. Did you have any independent knowledae as to 
who was f urnishinir the money for the assignment ? 

INfi'. Bt^ckley. T did not. 

Mr. Tiro:\rpsox. You have indicated some types of material that you 
viewed and photoffraphed. 


Was any of this material that was public matei-ial, that someone 
could oo to the headquarters and obtain ? 

Mr. Buckley. The press releases and the itineraries were — the itin- 
eraries frecpientlj^ were published in press release form. 

Mr. TiiOMrsox. Why was it necessary to oo through these gyrations 
then to obtain it? Were you getting it earlier than you otherwise could 
have gotten it ? 

Mr7 Buckley. I think so. Some of the press releases might be a day 

Mr. Thompson. The internal documents then I assume would not 
have been public knowledge at any time ? 

Mr. Buckley. I wouldn't think so. 

Mr. Thompson. What I am interested in is, how you analyzed it 
yourself, having worked in political campaigns, what type of ma- 
terial would a campaign organization turn over to some person who 
just walked off the street and said he wanted to help as evidently this 
cabdriver did ^ Were you surprised at the confidentiality of any of 
the documents that you saw or were they things that were highly 
confidential ? 

Mr. Buckley. Some of it, they were not classified, of course, but a 
memo like the critical memo of, concerning the Eehnquist prospective 
appointment I thought was a sensitive document and was surprised 
to see it there. INIuch of the material was not. 

Mr. Thompson. Did Mr. Wyatt ever indicate that he had any 
trouble obtaining any of these documents ? 

Mr. Buckley. Xo, my impression is that the box was given to him 
when he came in the morning and he merelv carried it from there 
to the Hill. 

Mr. Thompson. How long did he work there before he was entrusted 
with this type document ? 

Mr. Buckley. Not long, a matter of 2 or 3 weeks. 

Mr. Thompson. And who. in the organization, not a name in par- 
ticular, but who in the organization tui'ned these documents over to 
them, what position did that persoii hold ? 

Mr. Buckley. I don't know. I don't know the name; I can't recall 
any of the names of the Muskie campaign people. 

Mr. Thompson. You said you discussed with Mr. Rietz some alter- 
native method of obtaining the information that you wanted to ob- 
tain. What alternative methods did you discuss, if you recall? 

iMr. Buckley. They were generally in the nature of infiltration and 
penetration. They are methods that I consider standard, that I think 
most people in political contests know involve volunteers as clerks, 
volunteers as stenographers, volunteer press people, volunteer stu- 
dents, anyone who woidd ingratiate themselves with the opposition 
and gain access to some of them. 

Mr. Thompson. So they all encompassed the fact, in effect, of sup- 
plying \'o]unteers to Muskie headquarters ? 

Mr. Buckley. I did suggest any others — I am sorr}^ T didn't. 

Mr. Thotmpson.. I say all of tlie ideas that j^ou discussed encom- 
passed the idea of supplying some type of volunteers to Muskie head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. Buckley. In the Muskie headquarters or in the Muskie cam- 
paign, road activity or out-of-town speeches, that kind of thing. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. U -- 6 


Mr. Thompson. You mentioned previously in connection with that 
when Mr. Edmisten was questioning you that some of this informa- 
tion would have been public knowledge. Had you discussed the pos- 
sibility of just having someone assimilate what would be public 
knowledge as far as Mr. Muskie's position on issues were concerned or 
anything like that, or were you concerned about getting them before 
anybody else ? 

Mr. Buckley. I think the reason that I got, I didn't examine it 
that closely, I felt they weren't getting it anyplace else, that the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President had no access to that material as in 
fact I got. 

]\Ir, Thompson. You mentioned what you considered to be tradi- 
tional campaign activit}-, and I am sure that will be further pursued, 
but I will not take any more time at this point, so I have no further 
questions at this time. 

Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. INIr. Buckley, when and where did vou first meet 
Mr. Elmer Wyatt? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I met him in the early sixties in Washington. 
D.C. At the time, he was driving a taxicab, and at the time, I was with 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Senator Talmadge. AVas there anything peculiar about the first 
time you met him ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, my recollection is, and I have not verified 
this with iNIr. Wyatt, that he was one of several people that we inter- 
viewed in connection with some arrests made in la gambling establish- 

Senator Talmadge. Was he playing cards in the gambling establish- 
ment ? 

Mr. Buckley. ]My recollection is that he was there, I am not sure 
what he did. We did interview him and some others that were there as 
witnesses and they were released. There was not any 

Senator Talmadge. After that, vou goU to be good friends, I take 

Mr. Buckley. Over a period of years, I saw him occasionally. 

Senator Talmadge, AYhen you employed him to infiltrate the ISIuskie 
headquarters, what criteria were 3-011 looking for? 

Mr. Buckley. As far as a person to infiltrate ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. In view of the Siegel article, a cabdriver that was 
available and would be willing to take that kind of assignment. 

Senator Talimadge, Did you think a man that you had caught in a 
gambling bust would be ideal for that sort of duty ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, he was the only one I knew that was avail- 
able for this. 

Senator Talmadge. Where did you keep the money that you used to 
finance INIr. Wyatt in his operations ? 

Mr. Buckley. I kept it in cash. I kept it in the office in my desk or 
in a safe. I kept it at home different times and used it as I had to. 

Senator Talmadge. During all that period, you were a full-time 
Federal employee ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 


Senator Talmadge. Under the Hatch Act ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. I believe you stated that you did not think your 
duties were a violation of the Hatch Act? 

Mr. Buckley. I did not think they were. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you think theft was permitted by the Hatch 

Mr. Buckley. Theft, sir? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. I did not give it any thought. 

Senator Talmadge. You did not know that that was specifically — 
you thought that was permitted by the Hatch Act ? 

Mr. Buckley. I had no reason to consider it theft under the cir- 

Senator Talmadge. Do you not think taking someone else's personal 
documents and photographing them and delivering them elsewhere is 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir; I do not. 

Senator Talmadge. What do you think it is ? 

Mr. Buckley. I am not sure what I think it is. 

Senator Talmadge. You do not think it is singing in a choir, do you ? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not know^ how to respond to that, Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. You would not think it is one of the highest vir- 
tues of mankind, would you? I will put it that way. 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I think it is political espionage, I think it is 
infiltration. I think it is penetration. I think it is something that occurs 
in every major election that happens in this country. 

Senator Talmadge. You think it is perfectly legitimate ? 

Mr. Buckley. I think it is valid. 

Senator Talmadge. You do not feel contrite about your part in it 
whatever ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir ; I do not. 

Senator Talmadge. Why did you take the fifth amendment, then, 
and ask for immunity before you testified ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I am not familiar with the full range of law 
in the new election laws and statutes. For that reason, I thought that 
there may be something in those new laws that verged on this kind of 

Senator Talmadge. Your operation was strictly cash. You received 
the money in cash and paid it out in cash, did you ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. No records were retained ? 

Mr. Buckley. We did not keep any records. 

Senator Talmadge. How many times did you deliver photographs 
of documents that you took from Senator Muskie to Mr. Rietz or the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President ? 

Mr. Buckley. My estimation would be twice a month to each, and 
if it went 7 months, approximately 15 times. If it went 8 months, 
maybe two or three more times. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you think the operation was larger than you 
first envisioned that it would be ? 

Mr. Buckley. Larger, sir ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes, sir. 


^Ir. BrcKJLET. Xo : I did not think it was larger. 

Senator Taoiadge. Did you think it was more productive? 

^rr. Buckley. I was surprised that at the early development of this 
kind of material being available to this man. I did not em^ision that 
such a thinor would happen as quicklv as it did or that it would happen 
at all. 

Senator Tal:madge. Did you get more secret information than you 
thought you woidd ? 

Mr. BrcKLET. I did not see any classified information in that mate- 
rial. Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. Confidential ? 

Mr. Buckley. I did not see confidential. I saw sensitive material. 
I do not think any of it was classified. 

Senator Talmadge. You did find some sensitive material, then? 

Mr. Buckley. I woidd think the Rehnquist draft was a sensitive 
piece of paper. 

Senator Talmadge. You were not paid for your acti^-ities. were you? 

Mr. Buckley. Xo. sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You thought you were serving the cause of re- 
electing the President. I presume ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would answer, "yes." I would not put it that way. I 
tliought that I was providing a ser\'ice that I was asked to do. I cer- 
tainly had a preference of candidates and would have preferred that 
a Republican President be reelected. 

Senator Talmadge. You thought you were ser^^ing friends ? 

^Ir. Buckley. Part of it. 

Senator Talmadge. Xow. in your operations with Mr. AVarren. did 
they differ any from your previous operations when you delivered the 
documents to Mr. Rietz ? 

Mr. Buckley. He was more punctual. He was on time and had 
caused me a lot less concern than my relationship with Rietz over 
the previous 3 or 4 months. 

Senator Talmadge. You also. I believe, delivered some actual docu- 
ments to Mr. Warren in lieu of photographs, did you not ? 

Mr. Buckley. Xot documents. Senator. There were occasions when 
the taxicab driver would bring a press release from the press table 
and that would be delivered in its form. There were perhaps two oc- 
casions when I enlarged and printed the material for Hunt. 

Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Rietz ever tell you that information 
which you had received from the Muskie camp had been leaked to the 
press ? 

Mr. Buckley. On the contrary, lie told me that that memo had not 
come from the Committee To Re-Elect. He told me at that time, when 
I confronted him with it. A year later or so, he told me that he had 
lied to me and that in fact, that memo had come from the Committee 
To Re-Elect to Evans and Xovak. 

Senator Talmadge. Did any information which vou received from 
the Muskie headquarters and' delivered to Mr. Rietz get delivered to 
the press, the news media ? 

Mr. Buckley. I am not aware of any beyond the Evans and Xovak. 

S<^nator Talmadge. He did inform you that some of it was leaked 
to Evans and Xovak ? 

Mr. Buckley. That one particular memo. He told me long after the 
campaign that the committee had sent that to Evans and Xovak. 


Senator Talmadge. "What was the total amount of funds that you 
received for the operation ? 

Mr. BrcKLET. Senator, my recollection is that we went about 7 
months. If it is 7 months. S7.<)00. If it was 8 months, it is S8.000. I am 
thinkinof of the period from September 1971 to April 1972. 

Senator Talmadge. And that covered Mr. AVyatt's salary, the office 
rent, photographing material, et cetera ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes. sir. 

Senator Tal:madge. Xow. following the break-in. when it was in the 
newspapers, you recognized that the alias that you had been dealing 
with. ^Ir. "Warren, was. in fact. Howard Hmit. Did you become con- 
cerned al)out that i 

Mr. BrcKLET. Following the break-in. the name Edward "Warren 
appeared in connection with payment for some rooms in the "Watergate 
Hotel and the Howard Johnson. I do not know whether I was con- 
cerned, but it occurred to me that this was the same guy that I had 
been meeting. 

Senator Tal:madge. Did you discuss it with the Committee To Re- 
Elect tlie President ? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not think I did. There was not anyone that I was 
acquainted with to discuss it with. I certainly did. in the next year, 
discuss it two or three times with Rietz. 

Senator Talmadge. You did discuss it with Mr. Rietz ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes. sir. 

Senator Tal:hadge. Did he advise you to go to the authorities and 
tell them about it ? 

^Ir. Buckley. Xo. he did not. 

Senator Talmvdge. Did you give any thought to going to the au- 
thorities and telling them about it ? 

Mr. Buckley. Xo. sir. 

v^enator Talmadge. You gave no thought to informing the FBI ? 

Mr. Buckley. Xo. sir. 

Senator TAL5L\r>GE. VThy not ? 

Mr. Buckley. Informing the FBI about what activities I had been 
involved in ? 

Senator Talmadge. Activities that you had performed in your asso- 
ciation witli Mr. Howard Himt ? 

^Ir. Buckley. Senator, I didn't see any connection between what 
activity I had been involved in that terminated 3 or 4 months before 
the TTatorgate arrests and the rubber gloves and the burglary tools 
that were used in the Watergate. 

Senator Talmadge. You were meeting him on the street in a clandes- 
tine maimer and l)oth of you were using aliases and transporting docu- 
ments and casli money. Didn't you tliink there might be something a 
little mvsterious about it ? 

Mr. Buckley. I tliink that goes on in "Washington. Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. You didn't think it was a normal transaction 
like iroing in a restaurant and buying breakfast, did you ? 

^Ir. Bi-CKLEY. I thought it was a normal transaction for an election 

Senator Talmadge. You thought appearing on corners, both parties 
using aliases, transferring stolen documents and photographs, was a 
normal transaction in an election vear ? 


Mr. Buckley, I don't know about the stolen documents, I think that 
would be called discrete. That is the way that I attempted to keep it. 

Senator Talmadge. Where did you learn ethics in political cam- 
paigns, Mr. Buckley ? 

Mr. Buckley. I suppose I learned it from a period 1964 to 1073. 

Senator Talmadge. Was that in some political machine in some l)io: 
city, or how did you learn it in that f asliion ? 

Air. Buckley. I learned much of it in West Virtjinia. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, did you ever discuss your involvemeiit in 
the Muskie intelligence operation with your superior. Mv. Jerris 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, Jerris Leonard is a member of a law firm in 
this city. I have had discussions with Mr. Leonard and T would stand 
on the lawyer-client privileged communications Avith him in regard 
to the activity that we have been discussing today. 

Senator Talmadge. Did anyone ever instruct you to remain silent 
on your part in the matter ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. They did not. 

Thank you, jNIr. Buckley. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervik. Senator (lurney. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you, i\Ir. Chairman. 

Mr. Buckley, what did you expect to find in this activity, what really 
useful information? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, when it started. I didn't know what to find. T 
didn't know but what he would be rejected — meaning the cabdriver. I 
certainly thought that it would be not much of a chore to find out where 
the Senator was going to be for weeks at a time, what the position of 
the Senator would be on controversies and issues. A staff list of his vol- 
unteers was made available to the cabdriver within a matter of days. 
They all were furnished a staff list with the telephone numbers of 
all the volunteers on it. 

Senator Gurney. Are you saying that what you were looking for 
was really general intelligence as to what Senator Muskie was doing 
in his campaign and things he was saying, or tended to say? 

Mv. Buckley. Yes, sir. It didn't occur to mo that that would be diffi- 
cult to find out at all. 

Senator Gurney. As I understand the Hatch Act — I don't have it 
before me here — but it is unlawful in your official capacity, if you are 
a Government employee, to interfere with an election or influence an 
election. I understand that you had a job with the OEO. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. What was the job ? 

]\Ir. Buckley. I was director of investigations — director of in- 

Senator Gurney. Did you in any way, in this INIuskie operation, use 
your official position ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, that was one of five or six rules that I had 
with Tvietz, tliat there would be no Government facilities or material 
used, that it would be done on my own time, that nothing illegal would 
be involved, and that I would be the judge of what activities and what 
responsibilities the cabdriver was to have. 


Senator Gurnet. And this is why you think tliat you did not violate 
the Hatch Act ? 

Mr. Buckley. That is one reason that I do not think so. The Hatch 
Act, as I read it, deals with and anticipates collectino; of funds for po- 
litical activity, i)assino- out literature, runnino- for office, takino; part in 
partisan conventions or meetings, that kind of thing. It is fairly well 
spelled out in the act. 

Senator Gurney. Both the chief counsel or counsel who is doing the 
questioning for the majority and Senator Talmadge touched upon 
j)rior activities, in West Virginia and North Carolina, as I understand. 
Did these involve dirty tricks? What did they involve, anyway? Will 
you explain ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, for the most part in West Virginia, I was 
occuj^ied for 4i/> months in investigating irregidarities on the part of 
the preceding Governor of the State of West Virginia. 

Senator Gurney. Who was that ? 

Mr. Buckley. That was Governor Barron, Gov. Walter Barron 
of West Virginia. 

Senator Gurney. "N^Hiat did you find out ? 

Mr. Buckley. I maintained a running account of the activity that 
we were involved in there. AVe found out that a million and a half 
dollars of Federal flood relief money was completely dissipated. We 
found out that there were kickbacks involved in dummy corporations 
l)urportedly designed to do this cleanu]) after the flood. And all of this 
m.aterial was published and was iiublicized in the State of West Vir- 
ginia. Subsequent to 1964, that Governor and many of his top aides 
liave been indicted and convicted for misuse of Federal funds. 

Senator Gurney. Was this Governor a Republican Governor? 

Mr. Buckley. He was a Democratic Governor. 

Senator Gltkney. And you turned your information over to the 
proper authorities ? 

INfr. Buckley. We turned it over to tlie candidate, who made it avail- 
able to tlio proper authorities, the FBI. 

Senator Gurney. This resulted in indictments and convictions? 

INIr. Buckley. Yes, sir, ultimately. 

Senator Gurney. So 3^ou weren't doing dirty tricks? You were 

Mr. Buckley. Investigating all of the time. The dirty tricks 

Senator Git^ney. Were any Republicans involved in this illegal ac- 
ti\'ity tliat resulted in convictions? 

]\Ir. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. What were you doing in North Carolina? Were 
those dirty tricks ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I mentioned that on two occasions, at the re- 
quest of tlie Reiniblican candidate, I went to look into a situation of 
rai)e in a State institution tliat was never reported. 

Senator Gurney. ^V\M\t did that have to do with the campaign? 

]\Ir. Buckley. At that |)aiticular time, it amounted to what would 
appear to be negligence and a coverup l>y the State authorities of this 

Senator Gurney. Go on. 

;Mr. Buckley. In the second instance, it involved a review of regis- 
trations and voting in the 1968 election in the Durham area. 


Senator Gtjrney. And what did you find out there? 

Mr. Buckley. It was based on allegations and we did find some in- 
stances where Democratic registrants were registered from vacant 
lots ; in other instances, where people Avho had been dead voted in that 

Senator Gtjrney. What about Republicans ? Were they involved ? I 
Did you find irregularities there ? j 

Mr. Buckley. I didn't review the Republican registration. 

Senator Gurney. This was the extent of your activity, and it did 
not involve dirty tricks then ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. That was purely investigating into election irreg- 
ularities ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. How many documents did you photograph in 
this IMuskie operation ? Do you recall ? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not recall how many. 

Senator Gurney. Approximately ? 

Mr. Buckley. There would be times when we wouldn't photograph 
any. There would be times when there would be three or four and 
there might be a time, as in the case of the draft that I am talking 
about, while it was one document, it might have run 10 or 11 pages. 

Senator Gurney. Can you describe these documents in any more 
detail ? You mentioned one or two. What about some of the others ? 

Mr. Buckley. No more detail than a memo from a staffer to another 
staffer or a memo from a staffer to the Senator, or a double-spaced 
draft of a paper on — and I am not sure there was one — on the unem- 
ployment rate. 

Senator Gurney. These were documents that were being carried 
from his campaign headquarters to his Senate quarters. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes. 

Senator Gurney. Were these going to the Senator to keep him in- 
formed about what was going on? Was this the idea or what? 

Mr. Buckley. Possibly, or it could be that there was staff in the 
Senator's office that would need to consider these documents of the 
drafts. They weren't a finished product. They were not an announce- 
ment or written in the form of a speech. 

Senator Gurney. Did you find any information in what you photo- 
graphed to indicate that there was any surveillance or intelligence- 
gathering being done by the INIuskie campaign against any of the 
other candidates ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Did anybody indicate to you that any of this 
information was useful in these documents ? 

Mr. Buckley. I did not discuss it at all with Hunt, and I never had 
an indication from Rietz that anything was useful. On the contrary, 
there were complaints. Senator, especially^in the early days, that the 
film wasn't right, that it was fuzzy, that they couldn't read it, that it 
was upside down — that type of thing ; not many accolades. 

Senator Gurney. Maybe you should have taken a course in 

I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 


Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Mr. Buckley, did you 
consider your activities to be political in nature ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I considered them to be in the political area. 

Senator Inouye. And more specifically, political espionage? 

Mr. Buckley. I would accept that term. 

Senator Inouye. Who was your sponsor when you were appointed 
to your job at OEO? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I don't think that was a political appoint- 
ment. I had no sponsor. I had some 4 years experience with the Eco- 
nomic Opportunity Act and prior to that some 15 years of investiorative 
experience. I did not have a sponsor. The director knew me, the Direc- 
tor asked me to come down, I had refused him on one previous occasion 
and had refused another time to accept an assignment in OEO. 

Senator Inouye. Were you surprised when you were asked to do 
political espionage ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, I was not. 

Senator Inouye. Wlien you took the job did you understand that 
you would be involved in this type of work ? 

Mr. Buckley. I had an understanding that what we would at- 
tempt — I had no idea that it would result as quickly as it did in that 
type of access. 

Senator Inouye. I just want it clearer now. "V^Tien you took the 
OEO job- 

Mr. Buckley. I thought you 

Senator Inouye [continuing]. Were you asked to do political 
espionage ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, no ; I had no idea and I was not asked for the 

Senator Inouye. I am certain you were aware that the administra- 
tion was opposed to political activity being carried out by grant recip- 
ients of OEO funds such as those involved in legal services and com- 
munity action programs. 

Mr. Buckley. It has always been a violation of tlie guidelines. 

Senator Inouye. And I presume as part of your job as chief investi- 
gator you were overseeing complaints about grant recipients being 
involved in political activities? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouy^e. If you discovered a recipient engaged in partisan 
political activity, what did you do ? 

Mr. Buckley. We would submit reports to Civil Service Commission 
or to the appropriate program people in the agency. 

Senator Inouye. Now, your activities, your political espionage activ- 
ities were carried on during what hours? 

Mr. Buckley. Generally between 11 and 12, maybe once a week or 
maybe twice in some weeks. 

Senator Inouye. During the daylight hours? 

INIr. Buckley. During the daylight hours. 

Senator Inouye. This is during your working hours ? 

Mr. Buckley. During my lunch hour. 

Senator Inouye. 11 to 12? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. I thought you testified at times they were 8 o'clock 
in the morning? 


Mr. Buckley. I don't believe I did. 8 o'clock in the morning ? 

Senator Inouye. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. I don't believe I did. 

Senator Inouye. You didn't think that you were doing political 
activity while being paid by the Federal Government? 

Mr. Buckley. I didn't think I was violating the Hatch Act, Senator. 
I would consider it related, politically. 

Senator Inouye. So you don't think there is any similarity between 
grant recipients carrying out political activity and you carrying out 
covert political espionage? 

Mr. Buckley. I would not draw a distinction. I don't recall many 
grant recipients tliat were ever disciplined in any fashion for involving 
themselves in political activity. 

Senator Inouye. In other words, you feel that the subpena here is 
unjustly issued? 

Mr. Buckley. I did not say that. I have no idea that such is the 

Senator Inouye. How would you categorize your activities ? Would 
you say that they were illegal ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Unethical ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would not say it was imethical in the terms of 
election year, in the terms of what we were seeking to do. 

Senator Inouye. In other words, you are advising the committee 
that political espionage is an acceptable practice ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I think political espionage goes on all the 
time. It has gone on for many, many years. I do not feel that I in- 
A-ented it. I know of instances where five or six trained investi2;ators 
have conducted surveillances and have participated in national elec- 
tions. I expect that kind of thing. 

Senator Inouye. I am certain you did not invent political espionage 
but does that justify carrying out political espionage? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not feel that I need a justification. Someone may 
differ with me on that. I do not feel that I have to justify responding 
the way I did to a request from Ken Rietz. 

Senator Inouye. It was absolutely proper as far as you are 
concerned ? 

Mr. Buckley. As far as I am concerned it was. Senator. 

Senator Inouye. In response to Senator Talmadge's question you 
did not feel that it was larceny on the part of you and Mr. Wyatt in 
photographing documents without proper authority ? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not feel that it was' larceny. I do not know of 
any particular statute that would cover that. 

Senator Inouye. If some person photographed Government docu- 
ments, would you consider that larceny? 

Mr. Buckley. I am not sure that I 'would consider it larceny. It has 
been done and I am not sure that larceny is the way they proceed on it, 
if that would be Government property if they took a photograph, I 
am not sure. 

Senator Inouye. Would you consider the interception of a commu- 
nication or the invasion of privacy as being illegal, immoral, or 
unethical ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I do not consider candidates for the Presi- 
dency of the ITnited States as a private matter. I do not consider we 


were invading privacy in that regard. I think it is public. Candidates 
expect there will be investigations of them and their activities and I 
think candidates expect that there will be attempts to ascertain what 
their activity is and what their position on issues is. 

Senator Inouye. Do you think we should make a few changes for 
the next election ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, if there is to be legislation that will deal 
with political espionage it will be quite complex. I would have no idea 
of how you could prohibit it, describe it, and then enforce it beyond 
that. I think it is done in every election, the three or four that I have 
knowledge of and before that and beyond that, others. 

Senator Inouye. Would you consider wiretapping as illegal ? 

Mr. Buckley. Do I consider it illegal ? 

Senator Inouye. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. Yes. 

Senator Inouye. Did you think Mr. Wyatt's activities were legal? 

Mr. Buckley. Mr. Wyatt's activities? 

Senator Inouye. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Buckley. I think it was. 

Senator Inouye. Under false pretenses, intercepting communication 
was legal? 

Mr. Buckley. I do not know what the false pretenses statutes say. 
He certainly represented himself to be a volunteer, a deception cer- 
tainly. He did many things beyond what he did that were in the 
nature of service and I continued on beyond April doing those services 
for the Muskie campaign. 

Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. I was not quite sure, Mr. Buckley, when you said 
you felt you had a lawyer-client relationship with Mr. Leonard as to 
what you were referring to. I thought your attorney is with you here. 

Mr. Buckley. My attorney is with me here. The question was asked 
whether I had discussed with Mr. Leonard my situation and I at that 
point stood on privilege. 

Senator Weicker. Was not the relationship between you — correct 
me if I am wrong — I thought the relationship between you and Mr. 
Leonard was one of employer and employee. 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, there was a time when I went to Mr. Leonard 
and sought counsel on matters involving mv involvement in 1971 and 

Senator Weicker. All right. Have you ever met Mr. Caufield ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. Excuse me, I have. I had dinner with John 
Caulfield in the White House in 1969, purely as a third party to a din- 
ner between Caulfield and a friend of mine. That one occasion I met 

Senator Weicker. Did this relate to the campaign ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. This was strictly a personal meeting between 

Mr. Buckley. Personal meeting between Caulfield and my friend 
and I were asked to come. 

Senator Weicker. You had not known Mr. Caulfield prior to that ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I have not before or since. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Ulasewicz ? 


Mr. Buckley. No. 

Senator Weicker. No ; you say you received some $7,000 or $8,000 — 
possibly $7,000, possibly $8,000— for the duties that you performed, 
and others performed at your direction. Was any of this reported by 
you in your tax returns ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And did you report any of the money in the form 
of withholding or social security insofar as the money that you passed 
on to others ? 

Ml'. Bi CKLEY. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. This amount of money has been totally unre- 
ported, is that correct ? 

Mr. Buckley. It was unreported, I would not have considered re- 
porting it as income, certainly, and I do not think I am required to 
report it as exi^enses. I do not report per diem expenses. 

Senator Weicker. Have you given the committee a detailed list 
of your expenses in this matter in relationship to the money received ^ 

Mr. Buckley. Not a detailed list. I have been over the ground with 
the staff on two or three occasions, much in the same manner that we. 
have today. 

Senator Weickeji. Now, I was not quite clear in my mind as to 
your explanations of the investigations in West A-^irginia and in 
North Carolina. Were these investigations that you were conducting 
in the capacity of working for the House Committee on Education 
and Labor ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir; this was 196-t and I was a private employee 
working as an investigator for 4i,'2 months in West Virginia. X have 
a record of the investigations in the form of newsclips, I would be 
more than anxious to put those in the record if the committee would 
consider it. 

Senator Weicker. This was in what capacity ? 

Mr. Buckley. This was as an investigator for the Republican 
candidate for Governor. 

Senator Weicker. In West Virginia ? 

Mr. Buckley. Investigating irregularities of a previous admin- 

Senator Weicker. I see. All right. 

Your investigation in North Carolina, in what capacity was that? 

Mr. Buckley. As a personal friend to the Republican — as a per- 
sonal favor to the Republican candidate for Governor on two isolated 
instances I looked at two things that concerned him in North 

Senator Weicker. Now, I have got — I am going to be i-eading here 
from a memorandum that Avas sent to the Attorney General by Mr. 
IMagruder, it is dated January 81, 1972, first, let me ask the question : 
Were you at that time on January 31, 1972, engaged in the surveillance 
operation on JMuskie ? 

Mr. Bi CKLEY. Yes, sir. 
^ Senator Weicker. This memorandum states the attached informa- 
tion has come to our attention recently regarding Senator Muskie's 
campaign organization signed "Jeb Magruder." I am going to ask you 
whether or not any of the items which are identified here are items 
which you recall seeing during the course of your activities. 


1. Senator Muskie has received an invitation from a Mr. "William G. Mullen, 
General Counsel of the National Newspaper Association here in Washington, D.C. 
The invitation is for the Senator to appear at their Washington Government 
Affairs Conference on March 16-lS. They note in their invitation that they take 
a great deal of pleasure in the Senator's introduction of S. 2965, the so-called 
"Truth in Government Act of 1971." 

JNIr. Buckley. I do not recall that. 
Senator Weicker [continues reading] : 

2. Senator Muskie has been invited to speak at the 1972 Convention of the 
Young Democratic Club of Wisconsin. The convention is scheduled for March 17- 
19, 1972. at the Wausau Midway Motor Lodge. 

S. Mr. P'rederick Merrill, House Office Building 1422, Washington, D.C. 20515, 
has contributed to the Muskie 1972 campaign. 

4. Mr. Wally Boman, President of the Polish National Alliance of the United 
States of North America, Council 203, Washington, D.C, supports Senator Muskie 
and made a personal contrilmtion to his campaign. His address is 5119 Temple 
Hills Road, Washington, D.C. 20031. 

5. Mr. Norman Hinerfeld, Executive Vice President. Kaiser-Roth Corporation, 
640 Fifth Avenue. New York, New York 10019, is a contributor to the Muskie 

Mr. RiTCKLEY. I have no kno%v]edo:e of tliat. 
Senator Weicker [continiiino;] : 

Mr. Sam Harris, 120 Broadway, New York, New York 10005 is a generous 

Mr, Buckley. I have no knowledge of that. 
Senator AVeicker [continuing] : 

Mr. Jerry Magnin, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, Cali- 
fornia 90067, is a generous contributor to the Muskie campaign. 

Mr. Buckley. I have no knowledge of that. 
Senator Weicker [continuing] : 

Senator Muskie received a letter from Senator Thomas F. Eagleton, who wrote 
to him as Chairman of the Democratic Policy Council's Committee on Human 
Environment for the purpose of inviting Senator Muskie to put forth specific 
suggestions from him or his staff for the 1972 Democratic platform. Enclosed with 
the correspondence was an outline which says that the suggested format for 
platform suggestions should be double-spaced, 

and it goes on to give the detailed niunber of words, et cetera, is that 
familiar to you? 

Mr. Buckley. I have no recollection of that. 

Senator Weicker [continuing] : 

9. Mr. Frank S. Bernard. 222 South 24th Street, P.O. Box 487, San Jose, 
California 95103, has contributed .$1,000 to the California Citizens for Muskie 

j\f r. Buckley. I have no knowledge of that. 
Senator Weicker [continuing] : 

10. Letter to Senator Muskie from Robert Okin. Financial Consultant, Lincoln 
Avenue, West Orange. New .Jersey : "It is my expectation that additional funds 
can be available T\-ithin 30-45 days, and I shall send them along to you through 
Harold Grant." 

Mr. Buckley. I have no recollection of that. 

Senator Weicker. You have no knowledge of any of those types of 
documents ? 
Mr. Buckley. 'No, sir. 


Senator Weicker. And only in the most o;eneral way do you recall 
the matters that you photographed and turned over either to Mr. Kietz 
or to Ml". Wari'en ? 

Mr. Buckley. That is riglit. 

Senator Weicker. And in no c^ase were any of the matters that you 
turned over related to Hnancial contributions? 

Mr. Buckley. Not to my recollection. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. All "right. I am almost through my questioning 
here, just two more questions. 

Can you be more specific and tell me about other instances, other 
Presidential elections, senatorial elections for that matter, guber- 
natorial elections aside from your West Virginia work where espionage 
of the type you were engaged in occurs? You keep on referring to this 
as the basis for 

Mr. Buckley. As a common practice ? 

Senator Weicker. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. Well, I certainly can recall, and the committee is 
aware of the 1960 election. 

Senator Weicker. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Buckley. The 1960 Presidential election. 

Senator Weicker. And you ha\e some personal knowledge there ? 

Mr. Buckley. I have done some investigation in regard to that 

Senator AYeicker. Investigation of the election, of individuals in 
the election. Was this going on during the election or is this an in- 
vestigation after the election was over ? 

Mr. Buckley. I have been in\estigating in recent weeks the activity 
of several trained investigators in the 1960 campaign of Kennedy 
versus Nixon. 

Senator Weicker. Who has authorized you to do this investigation? 

Mr. Buckley. Who authorized me to do it? I am doing it for a local 
law firm. 

Senator Weicker. Which law firm ? 

Mr. Buckley. Leonard & Cohen. 

Senator Weicker. Let me get this straight, you are investigating 
the work of investigators who investigated the"^ 1960 campaign ? 

Mr. Buckley. No; I am investigating the activity of investigators 
who worked in the 1960 campaign. In espionage-type political activity. 

Senator Weicker. But now, you say that you are doing this at the 
present time. So, obviously, this would not be a justification for the 
actions which you took during the course of the 1972 election. I mean, 
I gather you were motivated or you justified those actions at the time 
on the basis of knoAvledge that you had that similar practices were 
employed in other elections? 

Mr. Buckley. On the basis of my feeling that political espionage 
or ])olitical intelligence gathering, jiolitical fact gathering, i)olitical 
information is done as a matter of course in elections, as a matter of 

Senator Weicker. Well, I want the specifics. I want the specifics 
you had in hand when you launched on this type of work in Senator 
Muskie's campaign. This was the basis, you told me, of what 

Mr. Buckley. I had the specifics in 1968 and I had the specifics in 
1972, and the general feeling that it is done in all elections. 


Senator Weicker. And this was of your own personal knowledge ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I will end the questioning just with a com- 
ment, and I am sure the conmiittee will otq into this further, Mr. 
Buckley. Mine is a very small State, but to the best of my personal 
experience, it doesn't ^lo on. Since we are here in front of the public, 
I think we had better o;et both points of view out on the table. Quite 
frankly, I think the people of Connecticut, and I think the attitude is 
shared by most other people in this country, don't think it should go 
on. I have heard a fjreat deal of oenerality as to all these instances, 
the types of thino- that you are enga<^ed in. I have heard very little 
in the way of specifics. 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, at the conclusion of campaifjns, these things 
are forgotten. Frequently, people wlio are involved in gathering intel- 
ligence on other parties sit and talk about them and enjoy them in 
later years. I served on a very partisan committee in the House of 
Representatives for 4 years and there was intelligence gathering and 
spies in each of our camps. We expected it. When we detected it, we 
tried to plug it. 

Senator Weicker. You mean there were spies on the committee ? 

Mr. Buckley. Democrat versus Republican, yes. sir. 

Senator Weicker. Tell me about it, now. Give me an example. 

Mr. Buckley. I will give you an example in 1967, when the Rules 
Committee was considering the P>onomic Opportunity iVct. We had 
drawn a list of 50 questions for the Republican members on the House 
Rules Committee. Our office was invaded and that list was taken and 
we found out the next dav that the Democratic staff liad our list of 
questions. Congressman H. Allen Smith ran an investigation on that 
and we did not discover who took them. 

Another time, I attended a s])eecli, a lecture by Sol Alinsky in a 
local church with one of the Congressmen on our committee. Staff 
on the other side of the committee took our ])ictures at that lecture, 
hoping to get the Congressman aiul I, more particularly the Congress- 
man, in a picture with Sol Alinsky to show that the Congressman, I 
suppose, was a liberal Congressman, or tliat he was a Sol Alinsky 

Now, these are facts of life. I think that these things happen and 
when I could, I would try to ascertain what the position of the Demo- 
crats would he on a conti-oversial bill such as the Economic Opportunity 

Senator Weicker. And these were the thoughts that were running 
through your mind when you agreed to go ahead and spy on Senator 
Muskie's headquarters ? 

Mr. Buckley. Xot really. I didn't think these things at all. T^Hien I 
was enlisted, I didn't analyze it, or try to turn it down. I thought it was 
a very natural and easv thing to accomplish. 

Senator Weicker. It was a natural thing to spy in an election? 

Mr. Buckley. ISTatural to me. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Well, you know, sometimes, I tell you, when I 
go back to Connecticut, T think the whole world is turned upside down 
by what seems to be natural around this town. But I suggest you 
get out of Washington, D.C., because it isn't natural for the State of 
Connecticut, and I will let the other Senators speak for themselves. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 


Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Buckley, how long were von a member of the 

Mr. Buckley. 131/^ years, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. When yon entered the FBI, did yonr qualifica- 
tions as a lawyer play an important part in being admitted? 

Mr. Buckley. I think it was a requirement at that time. 

Senator Montoya. And when you left the FBI, you wxnt to work 
for a committee in the Congress. 

Did you work with that committee as a lawyer? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I worked with them as an investigator to 

Senator Montoya. And how long have you been a member of the 

j\Ir. Buckley. I have been a member of the bar for 21 years. 

Senator Montoya. Have you practiced any law at all ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Do you pride yourself in being a member of the 
bar? Do you take great pride in being a member of the bar? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I avoid pride when I can. I was happy 
when I passed the bar. 

Senator Montoya. Do you feel an obligation to your profession 
ethically ? 

Mr. Buckley. I certainly do. I would if I were practicing law, I 
am sure. 

Senator Montoya. Well, do you feel that you have an obligation 
as an individual to your profession, irrespective of whether or not 
you ai-e practicing law ? 

Mr. Buckley. I don't know what obligations I have to my profes- 
sion. I pay my dues and I observe what I consider to be a reasonably 
ethical existence. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you admitted a few^ minutes ago that you 
were engaged in political espionage? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. That is what you call it? 

Mr. Buckley. That is what all people call it. I don't argue with this 
term at all. 

Senator Montoya. And that this political espionage was designed 
to aid one of the candidates for President ? 

Mr. Buckley. Designed to aid his committee, yes. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you also stated that while you were doing 
or while you were engaged in political espionage, that you were an 
employee of the Office of Economic Opportunity ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Were you carrying out these activities during 
the day ? 

Mr. Buckley. I was carrying them out during a period of 11 to 12 
o'clock on 1 or 2 days a week. 

Senator Montoya. Eleven to twelve and 

Mr. Buckley. Eleven in the morning to 12 noon on 1 or 2 days a 

Senator Montoya. Why did you pick that hour? 

]Mr. Buckley. This hour was picked up by the people who were 
sending the box from Muskie campaign headquarters. 


Senator Montoya. And that is when you would take your lunch? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And did you do this continuously, without fail ? 
At that particular hour ? 

Mr. Buckley. There were many days, Senator, that I could not ar- 
range to meet the taxicab driver. There were many days that he did 
not call me, there were many days that he was accompanied by other 
members of the Muskie conimittee staff and that would preclude our 

Senator Montoya. The point I am trying to make is did you feel 
that because you were undertaking this task during your so-called 
lunch hour, whether it be 11 to 12 or 12 to 1, that you were then acting 
properly and not violating the Hatch Act as an employee of the 
U.S. Government? 

Mr. Buckley. No, I don't relate the two. Senator. I have never been 
uncomfortable with the quid pro quo between the Government and 
me. I have been with them 25 years. I think they did well by me and 

I think I did my work for the 25 years. 

Now, the Hatch Act, I think, is a different question. It was not be- 
cause it was 11 to 12. I didn't think that activity was covered by the 
Hatch Act. I don't think it is spelled out in the Hatch Act. 

Senator Montoya. Well, in what way is it different, then ? 

Mr. Buckley. I don't think they are the same thing. I think they 
are apples and pears. In one way, I am satisfied that I was not using 
any Government time or any Government resource to meet this man at 

II o'clock, and on the other hand is the Hatch Act, and I don't feel 
that I was in violation of the Hatch Act, for different reasons. 

Senator Montoya. Now, I am going to read you one of tlie canons 
of ethics that governs the behavior of lawyers and their respon- 
sibility. It is canon ECl-5. 

A lawyer should maintain high standards of professional conduct and should 
encourage fellow lawyers to do likewise. He should be temperate and dignified 
and he should refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct. Be- 
cause of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may 
tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession. Obedience to law exem- 
plifies respect for law. To lawyers, especially, respect for the law should be more 
than a platitude. 

Do you feel that this provision applied to you ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I have no problem with that provision. I 
see nothing illegal in the activity that we have been talking about 
that went on from September 1971 to April 1972. 

Senator Montoya. Then you stated a few minutes ago that Mr. 
Wyatt, who was the courier for these documents, was engaged in 
some kind of deceit. 

Mr. Bi'Ckley. I woidd be comfoi'table with the word "deception." 
I think deceit is a little something different. 

Senator Montoya. Now, would you say that he was engaged in an 
act of dishonesty ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would not say that. 

Senator Montoya. Well, was it not dishonest of him to transfer some 
of these documents to you temporarily when he was working for the 
Mnskie campaign ? 

Mr. Buckley. Iwould not term that dishonest. 

Senator Montoya. ^^Tiat would you call that ? Disloyalty ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would call it political espionage. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 7 


Senator Montoya. And you don't feel that political espionage hasj 
some elements of dishonesty in it ? 

Mr. Buckley. I think it has elements of deception. I don't think \ 
it has elements of dishonesty. I don't think anything was taken. I 
don't think any doors were broken down. I don't think any rubber 
gloves were used. I don't see any theft involved. 

Senator Montoya. Do you feel that there was any fraud involved ;* 

Mr. Buckley. I think there was fraud involved. 

Senator Montoya. Then I will read you some of the items of mis- 
conduct that would constitute unethical conduct on the part of a 
lawyer. I read from DRl-102 : ''Engage in conduct involving dis- 
honesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." 

Now, you participated in this act with Mr. Wyatt, as you have 
stated. Now, would you think that your l)ohavior constituted unethical 
coiuiuci" on the ])art of a lawyer? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, No. 1, 1 was not acting as a lawyer, and No. 
2, I don't think that this involvement fits the section you just read. 
You are talking about fraud and dishonesty. I think you are talking 
about something different, something illegal. 

Senator Montoya. Then I will ask you the question : Don't you think 
that the code of ethics governing the legal profession applies to all 
lawyers 24 hours a day, irrespective of whether they are practicing the 
profession or not ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I think the general standards certainly 
would apply to all lawyers. I don't know about 24 hours a day, whether 
or not they wei-e practicing. 

Senator JNIoxtoya. Do you think that you would remain in the legal 
profession as a licensed member of the bar if you violated any partic- 
ular act involving a felony ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You think vou would remain as a member of the 

]\Ir. Buckley. No; I think I would be disbarred. I misunderstood 
your question. 

Senator INIoxtoya. And by the same token, if you violated any of 
the other canons, you would be subject to disbarment, would you not? 

Mr. Buckley. I would be if they were in violation and if they were 

Senator Moxtoya. That is all, j\Ir. Chairman. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, INIr. Chairman. 

Senate Resolution 60, which created this committee, Mr. Buckley, 
provides that we will inquire into Presidential campaign activities for 
1972 as that conduct may relate to illegal, unethical, or undesirable 
conduct, or words to that effect. It is clearly limited to 1972. There was 
extended floor debate on the Senate floor about whether the resolu- 
tion should be amended to extend beyound 1972 and that resolution 
was not so amended. So we are dealing with 1972. But it seems to me 
that we have a problem here. If we are going to go beyond illegal and 
into unethical or undesirable, which are value judgments and highly 
subjective in tlieir nature, we would need a bench warrant. I am not 
sure that you can decide in the abstract that a particular course of 
action is unethical or undesirable on the face of it, but it must need a 


benchmark or some basis for comparison. And tliat may lead us beyond 
1972. That may lead us some years behind 1972. 

I make that preliminaiy statement because I want you to fully 
understand why I am asking the next line of questions that I am about 
to ask. It is in no way calculated to circumvent the mandate of the res- 
olution which created our jurisdiction on this committee but rather 
to serve as some further guide on this committee in making those value 
judgments as to whether some conduct is undesirable or unethical as 
distinguished from illegal. 

Mr. Buckley, you entered into considerable colloquy with Senator 
Weicker about particularities of certain instances of political espion- 
age in j)revious campaigns. I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with 
Sentator Weicker when he says he has heard a lot of generalities but 
not many details. That troubles me, because I, too, have heard many 
witnesses come here and say, well, it is done all the time, or even some 
to suggest, well, the defense against certain mattei-s that have been 
adduced in this record would be that the Democrats did it, too. 

You may be assured that that is not what I am searching for. But 
I am searching for some basis for comparison. 

Going back to the very excellent question put by Senator Weicker, 
we can't do with additional value judgments or subjective analyses. 
We need facts. If you have particular important and significant facts 
which go into the makeup of the political communities concept of what 
is unethical or under undesirable, what is routine and regular, what is 
done all the time or what isn't done all the time — if you have some in- 
formation about that, I as one member of the committee would like 
to have it ; not as a prolonged exposition of the alleged conduct or mis- 
conduct or misbehavior on the part of others in other campaigns, but 
what is the standard of politics in America? You have not given us 
much so far. You have given us a little. If you care to add to that, I, 
as one member of the committee, would be happy to hear it. 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I am sorry that I haven't given you more 
specifics than I have. I don't think people, prior to this committee's 
hearings, were conscious that political information gathering was a 
violation of anything and I don't think any effort has been made to 
document any of that or to challenge it. 

Senator Baker. As I have pointed out in my statement just a mo- 
ment ago, we were mandated to inquire far beyond the violation of 
statute law, but to inquire also into conduct that might be unethical or 

Now, if that is so, if there is a general opinion in the political 
community, if I may adjust that phrase, that gathering information 
in a surreptitious way by, as you put it, political espionage, was the 
normal and ordinary thing to do, or even not unusual, I would like to 
have, as Senator Weicker would, additional facts that would back 
that up. That is an observation that I often hear, but the record is 
bereft of any real substantiation of that claim. 

Mr. Buckley. I understand and I am not in a position to document 
other instances of it in 1972 or in previous years. 

Senator Baker. I suppose if we were trying a lawsuit at this time, 
counsel would probably try to qualify you as an expert witness, say 
notwithstanding your absence of particular information based on 
your total reservoir of experience, do you have an opinion? I am 


not certain I want to qualify you as an expert witness, but if we were 
trying a lawsuit, that is probably what would happen. That would 
be the next step. 

But I gather you have already testified that it is your impression 
that that was the kind of practice in politics, to gather information 
surreptitiously or secretively or deceptively. Is that correct, Mr. 
Buckley ? 

Mr. Buckley, Yes. Not totally. I think there are many ways to 
gather information about the opposition's activities and positions tliat 
are not surreptitious. The usual case that I do know of, some going 
back to 1964, is a volunteer within an organization who, for some 
reason, is disgruntled or malcontent and she goes to the opposition 
and says, "Do you know what my boss is doing?" or "Do you know 
what he is doing this week ?" 

Senator Baker. How would you characterize that, say, a secretary 
gets disturbed about her boss' position — the candidate — on a partic- 
ular issue and decides to go to the other side and give him, give the 
other candidate — the opposition — a whole raft of information, confi- 
dential and otherwise, is that 

Mr. Buckley. I think she is a spy. 

Senator Baiver fcontinuing]. Is that illegal? 

Mr. Buckley. Probably not. 

Senator Baker. Do you think it ought to be, Mr. Buckley ? I happen 
to think it should be and I am struggling for some way to define 
that, but if it is going to be illegal we are going to have to describe 
it with some precision, but what is your value judgnient? Do you 
think that example, the young lady who is a secretary, who thinks 
that her boss is on the wrong track and she decides to convey infor- 
mation to the other side — ought that be a violation of statute law, in 
your opinion? 

Mr. Buckley. I think it would be extremely difficult to spell that 
out, to cover all situations that could arise. 

Senator Baker. Do you think it is undesirable? 

^fi'. TU-('KLKT. I tlnnlv if is unfortunate. I think it is a fact of life 
and I think we will have it with us. 

Senator Baker. Let us think al^out the fact of life for a minute. 
We are all aware of our imperfections but we all also are aAvare of an 
effort to try to improve on it, anyway. Even if it is a fact of life, does 
it have to be a fact of life, can you give me any help on that respect, 
let me put it the other way. Do you think it is desirable that that sort 
of thing happens? T am speaking still of the example you gave us of 
a secretary who decides to spill the beans to the op]:)osition without 
money, without coercion, voluntarily, if you please, but is that a 
desirable thing to happen ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I do not think it is desirable. I think it hap- 
pens in the political arena, I think the books are filled with it hap- 
pening up on Capitol Hill of goino; to the press and to anthor'ties 
and I think the executive branch downtown is loaded with them. I 
think the spies that walk around in AVashington and in the executive 
departments today number thousands. 

Senator Baker. How are you going to do anything about that? 
Do vou have any suggestions ? 

Mr. Buckley. I have no practical way to stop this type of thing. 


Senator Baker. Of course, you come up against a fundamental con- 
stitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and the right to exercise 
the franchise. While we are not dealing directly with the vote, we are 
possibly dealing with the question of, to what extent one may engage 
in political activity according to the dictates of his or her own con- 
science. Might it not be a matter of convenience if someone decided 
he owed a responsibility to disclose certain information assuming 
it Avas not statutorily classilied ? 

Mr. Buckley. I am sorry, 1 cannot help. Desirable maybe but prac- 
tical, I question. 

Senator Baker. So I think what you are telling me is that the 
transference of information, secretly or surreptitiously for whatever 
motive, is in your oi)inion connnon, a routine thing not only in politics 
but in Government? 

Mr. Buckley. In politics and Government and business in the busi- 
ness community. 

Senator ]5aker. And you cannot give me any help on how we stop it? 

Mr. Buckley. You find them and dismiss them. 

Senator Baker. Well, you know when you get into this thicket, and 
we get into it regularly in the Congress, that is deciding that some- 
thing is bad, that something a little less is probably not illegal and the 
next step beyond that is not even immoral, but wdien you get into these 
shadings of gray, when we get into them it is the congressional tech- 
nique usually to move up or down that spectrum and to draw lines 
and say arbitrarily we are going to decide that beyond this point you 
will not pass. If we adopt that time-honored and traditional congres- 
sional technique, could we start out by saying that it ought to be illegal 
to engage and pay agents for the sake of serving the purposes of 
political espionage? We could do that. We could say it is an unlawful 

Mr. Buckley. I suppose you could, and then you would have to spell 
out what constituted the illegality involved. 

Senator Baker. That is true, and might we go on to the next step 
and that gets you into another band of the spectrum where the grays 
are equally undifferentiated. Could we agree that it should be unlawful 
to surreptitiously gain documents without the knowledge of the owner 
of those documents, to photograph them and deliver them to the oppo- 
sition ? 

Mr. Buckley. That would be specific, and I think it would be a 
violation of that statute if you pass it. 

Senator Baker. Do you think we ought to pass it ? 

Mr. Buckley. I think that would cover that situation. I do not 
know how you are going to cover the other hundred situations that 
come up. 

Senator Baker. I do not either, but I am looking for that line. 

Mr. Buckley. That would cover that one, that statute. 

Senator Baker. Is that high enough up the ladder so I think it would 
be worthwhile ? 

Mr. Buckley. I can only answer yes. Senator. 

Senator Baker. You know, politics has taken a bum rap. I am a 
politician and my father before me and my grandfather before me 
was a politician, mv mother was a politician, a Member of the Con- 
gress, and I have always held and still hold politics in the highest 
esteem. I have, not an exaggerated view of the citizen responsibility 


to serve, maybe not all your life, but to serve, and I think of tlie early 
patriots who did serve for a while and then ^o back to farming or 
quarryino: limestone or whatever they did, or practicin*^ law. But 
politics, tiiat is citizen participation in })olitics, is going to continue 
to take a bum rap if we leave this business witli everybody deciding 
that is the way it is done, that is the way it always happens, and that 
is the way it is always going to be because nobody is going to do any- 
thing about it. I am not tongue-lashing you, Mr. Buckley, i)ut thinking 
out loud. 

How can you suggest in view of your experience and familiarity 
with this subject, how can you suggest that we change that attitude 
aiul pei'ception of politics? Surely we can begin with political es- 
pionage, surely there is a way to clo that. Can you give us any other 
enlightenment? What else ought to be illegal, what else would happen 
to make it not the ordinary thing? 

Mr. Buckley. I would make a distinction between the kind of 
things we are talking about today and the kind of things you have 
been talking about the past weeks, dirty letters and accusations of 
immorality, that kind of thing. I do not think they belong in the 
same bag of tricks at all. 

To start, with political espionage, I am not sure that I see that 
that would be illegal. 

Senator Baker. Of course, you can go across the whole range of 
considerations in political espionage, you can talk about hiring a cab- 
driver to gain documents that arc going to be photographed and 
turned over to the opposition. You can talk about the situation of 
printing scurrilous literature about one candidate or the other, or 
fomenting demonstrations, promoting people to demonstrate either 
peacefully or violently, carrying signs that are unflattering, "\^^lere 
do you draw the line in there ? Can you legislate against those things 
or can you give us any suggestion as to where they fall in the spectrum 
of political concern ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I cannot. 

Senator Baker. How are we going to go about this, ^Ir. Buckley? 
would you agree with me politics is taking a bum rap and we have 
to do something about it? 

Mr. Buckley. I would agree with you. I hope I have not inferred 
that there is anything per se dirty or dishonest about politics and 
that it is not an honorable pursuit. 

Senator Baker. Then, how are we going to make it more honorable ? 

Mr. Buckley. I think you have been doing a good job for the past 3 

Senator Baker. Are you t^alking about the example that we may 
create as a result of these hearings in the mind of the public? 

^Ir. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. We have mixed reaction to that. I have had wit- 
nesses say that that may be the greatest contribution of the committee. 
I have others say that it probably will cause the public to drop out of 
politics in disillusionment. 

So, that coin like most coins has two sides. But we are a legislative 
body, the Congress, the Senate and this committee, and while public 
inf(irmation and example is one of our legitimate "implied ]-)Owers" — 
if I may use an executive department phrase — it is one of our implied 


powers, it is not a principal obligation. Our principal obligation is to 
recommend legislation, and I gather you are not in a position to recom- 
mend any specific legislation that we might take account of in our 

Mr. Buckley. No. sir ; I don't feel qualified. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Buckley, you brought forth a document, a book 
it would appear, in the course of your testimony which I have never 
seen and loiow nothing about but*^my curiosity won't permit me not 
to ask you what it is. 

Mr. Buckley [holding book] . Senator, this is a series of newsclips, 
newsstories in the 1964 giibernatorial campaign in West Virginia. 

Senator Baker. In the 1964 gubernatorial campaign ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. I would like to go into that but I don't think now, if 
you please, Mr. Buckley. 

Mr. Buckley. You are welcome to it and you may have it for as long 
as you like. 

Senator Baker. Obviously it is not within the scope of the commit- 
tee's jurisdiction except to tlie extent that it relates to the political 
mores and I won't ask you to produce it. 

Senator Ervin. Senator, pardon me. I certainly agree it is not within 
the scope of our investigation. This committee is not authorized to 
investigate all the evil that is — that has occurred in the world. 

Senator Baker. Well, you know. Senator Aiken of Vermont re- 
marked to me one day when I went to the Senate floor and apparently 
looked haggard and tired, and patted me on the shoulder as Senator — 
only Senator Aiken can do — and he said, "Howard," he said, "don't 
despair, there is a great reservoir of evil in the world and you are not 
about to exhaust it," and I am sure we aren't. 

But, you know, Mr. Chairman, if I can think out loud in connection 
with this witness' testimony for just a moment and then I am through 
with my inquiiT, I think it is true that the mandate of this committee 
does not extend beyond 1972, except to the extent that I have sug- 
gested — that is, how do we evaluate the subjective quality of immoral 
or undesirable as distinjxuished from illegal — but when we finish this 
record, I have an idea that the committee ought to give some thought 
to certifying relevant portions of our record to the standing jurisdic- 
tional committees of the Senate, who are not limited to 1972, to look 
further into matters that have been made to appear or have developed 
from our investigation, because the fact that things weren't all sweet- 
ness and light in 1972 does not mean we ought to close our eyes to 
what happened m other elections. 

That is all I have at this moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. You say that you think it is all right to do some of 
the things you did because they had been done in times past, and I will 
have to say that on this point, the other members of this committee 
in interrogating you have assumed that you are an expert in political 
activities and, in consequence, have asked you certain hypothetical 
questions. I will probably succumb to the temptation to follow their 

As an expert on political matters, do you think it is honorable con- 
duct for a committee charged with responsibility for electing the Pres- 
ident to use campaign funds received by it for that purpose, to employ 


persons to bug and burglarize the headquarters of the opposing politi- 
cal party? 

]\Ir. Buckley. To burglarize and what else, Mr. Chainnan? 
Senator Ervin. Bug and burglarize. 
Mr. BiTCKLEY. My answer would be no. 

Senator Ervin. t take it, I infer, from your testimony that you 
think it is all right and moral to undertake to sabotage the campaign 
of a person seeking the Presidential nomination or election by spy- 
ing upon his activities, by cariying out of his headquartere documents 
relating to his campaign and photographing them and transferring 
the photographs to other persons in charge of the campaign of the 
opposing party, candidates, is that right? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, you used the word "sabotage." I don't think 

sabotage applies to this situation. I think it is 

Senator Ervin. Will you accept the word "disrupt" instead of "sab- 
otage" and answer the question ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I will not accept the word because I thinlv 
you have had a lot of testimony before this committee that did con- 
stitute sabotage and did constitute disruption. I had no intention — I 
don't think at any time we disrupted the campaign of Senator Muslde. 
Senator Ervin. Well, that is what you were trying to do, weren't 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir, we were trying to — I think a candidate is 
within his rights to gather intelligence on the opposition. I think the 
method by which he gathers it certainly makes a difference. Penetra- 
tion and infiltration of an opposition's campaign headquarters, trains, 
that type of thing, I don't see anything illegal about those or anything 
disruptive or sabotage. 

Senator Ervin. Do you see anything immoral in deception ? 
Mr. Buckley. Deception ? 
Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Buckley. I don't see any degree of immorality in deception 
than I do in sabotage or disruption. 

Senator Era^n. Do you see any immorality in lying? 
Mr. Buckley. In lying, sir ? 
Senator Er\^n. Yes. 
Mr. Buckley. I am sure there is. 

Senator Ervin. Well, didn't you lie to Senator Muskie's organization 
by telling them that you were supporting him ? 

Mr. Buckley. I didn't. Maybe the taxicab driver did, but he also 
told him that he would do errands for him, taking his suits to the 
cleaners and taking his baggage to the airport and all of those things, 
he did. 

Senator Er\t:n. And assist you in taking his words off pieces of paper 
and giving them to his political enemies. He did agree to that, too. 
didn't he — the taxi driver ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would not consider them political enemies. I would 
call them opposition. 

Senator Ervin. We have had some testimony here about people we 
consider public enemies which was rather astounding to me. 
Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Er\t:n. Well anyway, you can't emulate Adam's example 
and put your sins over on the taxi driver. As a matter of fact 


Mr. Buckley. No. 

Senator Eevin [continuing]. The taxi driver didn't do anything ex- 
cept what you conspired with him to have him do, did he? 

Mr. Buckley. I have no problem with it consciencewise, Mr. Chair- 

Senator Ervin. You have no problem with a conscience ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Ervix. Well, do you consider you have a tender conscience 
or a callous conscience ? 

Mr. Buckley. I consider I have an active conscience. 

Senator Ervix. An active. Does it have any activity except activity 
which results in stultifying itself ? 

]Mr. Buckley. I don't know how to respond to that question. The 
ends i ustif y the means, that type of thing, no. 

Senator Ervin. You don't believe that ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, how did you perform all of these things you 
had performed with the connivance of the taxi driver ? In other words, 
here you took the papers temporarily out of the possession of the 
Muskie campaign organization and photographed them surrepti- 
tiously, and then returned the papers to the Muskie campaign organi- 
zation and delivered the photographs of the w^ords on those papers 
to the Committee To Re-Elect the President, didn't you? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, I don't know whether that is larceny or not 
but evidently the Department of Justice considered it to be larceny 
when they instituted a prosecution for the stealing of the words of the 
Pentagon Papers against Ellsberg. 

Mr. Buckley. I don't conceive 

Senator Ervin. There might be some technicality that keeps it from 
being legal larceny but it certainly constitutes moral larceny. 

Mr. Buckley. He stole the papers when they were classified. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. Well these papers were private, weren't they ? 
You took some of them. Didn't you rifle through Senator Muskie's 
mail, open his mail ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. Not once. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you read open mail that you saw — the letters, 
the prepared letters. 

Mr. Buckley. I am not sure I read Senator Muskie's letters. 

Senator Ervin. Well, how many documents did you take out of his 
headquarters and photograph and then return the documents to his 
oganization and give the photographs of those documents to the Com- 
mittee To Ee-Elect the President ? 

Mr. Buckley. Several. 

Senator Ervin. Several. Would that be 50 or 60 or 70 or 100 ? 

Mr. Buckley. I would not be able to estimate at all accurately. I 
would say dozens, 2 or 3 dozens. 

Senator Er\^n. Do vou reckon it was that little? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I am sorry, I have no idea how many there 

Senator Ervin. Is it fair for me to infer from your testimony that 
you have been engaged in politics a long time ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 


Senator Ervin. How long have you been engaged in politics ? j 

Mr. Buckley. I have been acquainted with the political area since' 
1964 ; not much, if any, before that. 

Senator Ervin. That is a 10-ycar period ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Can you tell tliis committee a single thing that 
you did in that period to purify politics ? 

Mr. Buckley. To purify politics ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mv. Buckley. I would liope that some lessons learned in West Vir- 
ginia had purified politics down tliere a little bit since 1964. 

Senator Ervin. That is not what you did. That is what somebod} 
else did, you say. 

JNIr. Buckley. I did all of the leg work on it. 

Senator ER^^N. I know, but you investigated somebody else? 

Mr. Buckley. Eight. 

Senator Er\t[n. I am asking you about your activities in politics othei' 
than your investigations, Avhat you did to help the Committee To Rc- 
Elect the President and what you helped other persons do to elect 
persons to office? In other words, can you name a single, concrete 
contribution you liave made in your 10 years of political life to the 
purification of the political process ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you know, if you take your theory that evil 
done in the past justifies doing evil in the present 

Mr. Buckley. That is not my theory, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Well, maybe it is not your theor}-, but it is the 
excuse you gave to this committee for your actions. 

Mr. Buckley. My theoiy is that a candidate has a right, and it is 
proper for him to gather intelligence on the opposition, and I expect 
it is done in most, if not all campaigns. 

Senator Ervin. Well, I have never been in a campaign where it was 
done as far as I know and I have been in campaigns since 1922. 

Mr. Buckley. And you never had any intelligence on any of your 
opponents ? 

Senator Ervin. None whatsoever except what I could get out of tlie 

;Mr. Buckley. OK. 

Senator Ervin. I refuse to accept the theory that because there have 
been murders and larcenies in every generation, murder has become 
meritorious and larceny has become legal. 

Mr. Buckley. That is not my theory, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. A\niy do you draw the line where your theory op- 
erates on a lesser scale than that ? 

Mr. Buckley. I certainly deny there was larceny and murder in 
anything that I was involved in. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. That is all the questions I have. 

Any further questions from anybody? 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, yes, just a few last questions here. 

As I understand it, then, you do not feel that you caused any dis- 
ruption, but you would admit that what you were engaged in was 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 


Senator Weicker. Spying — that is the word ? 
Mr. Buckley. Spying is the word. 

Senator Weicker. Well, let me just make one comment here. It being 
the football season, you can throw that out, but I can tell you, it is 
not coming through my side of the line, and I mean it. 

How about the public record? Do you think that is a fair place 
to draw the line, that anything that is a matter of public record is 
fair game in the course of an election ? 

Mr. Buckley. I think that is research. I am sure there is much of 
that done. 

Senator Weicker. And that anything that is not a matter of public 
record falls into this very area that you were engaged in? 
Mr. Buckley. Much of that was public information. 
Senator Weicker. Well, if it was public, what you were engaged in, 
if it was a matter of public record, you do not have to use aliases and 
photograph things in taxicabs and have plants. In fact, you were 
not interested in the public record. You were interested in that which 
was not on the public record. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, I did not liave any design when I started this. 
I had no idea what would evolve from it. What I was interested in 
is what I was asked to do : Itineraries, position papers, staff lists, that 
kind of thing. 

Senator Weicker. But you were not interested in the public record, 
you were interested in that which was not available through normal 
channels to the public. 

Mr. Buckley. I am not sure that I was. I did not give it that much 

Senator Weicker. Is this the first time that you ever recruited a 
spy to work in a political campaign ? 

!Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. I had a couple in West Virginia and there 
were a couple in my camp. 

Senator Weicker. I am asking you, is this the first time that you have 
recruited a spy to work in a political campaign ? 
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Is this the first time that you have conducted 
this type of an operation where you received papers from the spy, 
photographed them, and turned the results of your work over to a 
particular individual or political committee? Is this the first time 
that you have done that ? 

Mr. Buckley. Senator, as far as politics go, it is the first time. I 
have deceived and penetrated the Communist Party, the Ku Klux 
Klan, the Mafia, and hoodlums in Washington, D.C., with methods 
similar to this. The methods are all the same. 

Senator Weicker. We are not putting Senator Muskie in that cate- 
gory, are we ? 

Mr. Buckley. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. But this is the first time you have done this in a 
political campaign ? 
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. So that this committee now has your statements, 
and those that are privy, which is the whole country, to our discus- 
sions, that this is the first time that you have done this tvpe of activity ? 
Mr. Buckley. No ; it is not. In 1964, 1 did it. In 1964,'^I fired a couple 
of people who were doing it to me. 


Senator Weicker. These types of activity. I thought your answer 
to me was this is the first time you recruited a spy to work in a political 

Mr. Buckley. If that is my answer, I will retract it and say there 
was some of it in the 1964 campaign. 

Senator Weicker. Which you did ? 

Mr. Buckley. I had people reporting to me that were working for 
the Democratic candidate for Governor. And he had my people re- 
porting to him. 

Senator Weicker. So this was done not only in the Muskie campaign 
by you, which is firsthand knowledge, as far as you are concerned, but 
also you did it once before in 1964 ? 

Mr. Buckley. That is right. 

Senator Weicker. And these are the two instances when you have 
engaged in this type of activity ? 

Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Any others where you have done this type of 
activity ? 

Mr. Buckley. Any others ? No. 

Senator Weicker. So on the basis of your two experiences, every- 
body does it, is that right ? 

Mr. Buckley. I did not say that. Senator. I say it is common that 
political intelligence-gathering and political espionage are carried on 
in most political campaigns. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I am interested in j^our firsthand knowl- 

Mr. Buckley. Well, all right. 

Senator Weicker. In your firsthand knowledge, you have donfe this 
twice in the course of your lifetime in government and politics ? 

Mr. Buckley, Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervix. Any further questions ? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, the witness who would follow Mr. Buck- 
ley, which is Mr. IMichael ]\Ic]\Iinoway — his counsel, ]Mr. Frank 
Haddad, was grounded in Louisville, Ky., and is unable to get to the 
committee room until about 4 or 4:30. Therefore, we are unable to 
produce a witness after ]Mr. Buckley at this time. 

Senator Ervix. Before I excuse you from further attendance, Mr. 
Buckley, I am constrained to make the observation that I am some- 
what intrigued by your statement that deception is different from 

Mr. Buckley. I think I made a distinction between deception and 

Senator Er\t:x. Well, evidently, Noah Webster did not know about 
that distinction when he made his dictionary. 

Ml". Bucki>ey. I think T^ari-y Brown is a deceptive back, but I do not 
think he is a deceitful back. 

Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. 

[Whereupon, at 12 :4-3 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 10, 1973.] 


U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in room 
318, Eussell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, Gur- 
ney, and Weicker. 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred 
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief 
counsel ; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant ; David M. Dorsen, James 
Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; Marc 
Lackritz, William T, Mayton, James C. Moore, Ronald D. Rotunda, 
W. Dennis Summers, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority coun- 
sels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, 
deputy minority counsel ; Howard S. Liebengood, Michael J. Madigan, 
and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Jed Johnson, 
investigator; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Filer Ravnholt, 
office of Senator Inouye ; Bruce Jaques, Jr., office of Senator Montoya ; 
Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assist- 
ant to Senator Weicker; Michael Flanigan, assistant publications 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will call 
the first witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Michael McMinoway. 

Senator Ervix. Mr. McMinoway, will you please stand and raise 
your right hand. Do you swear that the evidence that you shall give 
to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. McMinoway. I do. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. McMinoway, I see you are accompanied by counsel. 
Will counsel identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Haddad. My name is Frank E. Haddad, Jr. I am an attorney 
from Louisville, Ky., and I represent Mr. McMinoway. And may the 
record please show Mr. McMinoway is appearing here today pursuant 
to a subpena. 

Mr. Dash. Yes. Mr. Chairman. He is — Mr. McMinoway is under a 
subpena and is not a voluntary witness. Mr. McMinoway has not re- 
quested nor has the committee extended any immunity to Mr. 

Mr. Haddad. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. McMinoway, will you briefly give your background 
in political activity prior to the Presidential campaign of 1972 ? 




Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. I became involved in political activities 
in 19 — I had originally iDecome active in political campaigns in 1956 ' 
during the Presidential election of Dwight Eisenhower. Ever since 
that period, I have worked in every general election and every pri- 
mary in my home State of Kentucky with the addition of the 1966 
Tennessee senatorial election and in the 1972 national Presidential 

Mr. Dash. During the 1972 Presidential campaign, were you re- 
quested by anybody to be a political spy against different major Dem- 
ocratic candidates in primary campaigns ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Mr. Dash, I was contacted in early February 1972 
and requested to undertake a political investigation and intelligence- 
gathering operation. 

Mr. Dash. ^Vlio contacted you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, I was contacted by an old acquaintance 
of mine, Martin Blackwell from Washington, who informed me that — 
during the course of our conversation — if I was interested in talking 
with someone about activities on the national scale in the 1972 elec- 
tion, he would have an acquaintance of his contact me. 

Mr. Dash. Did such an acquaintance contact you ? 

Mr. MclMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. In mid-February, I was contacted by a 
man who identified himself to me as Jason Rainer, who expressed a 
wish to meet with me in Louisville and discuss employment of the na- 
ture you have discussed. 

Mr. Dash. "Wlien you say, discussed the employment of the riature 
you have indicated, just specifically what was the nature of this em- 
ployment? Did you say, intelligence-gathering? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Right. 

]\Ir. Dash. "What were you supposed to do to gather this intelligence? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. We had a meeting in Louisville, Ky., at the Ex- 
ecutive Inn Hotel on Saturday morning in which we sat down and 
spent about an hour and a half working out the details of the spe- 
cific assignment. The details, as explained to me. were to work in the 
Presidential primaiy States and track and infiltrate into the Demo- 
cratic organizations with the purpose of gathering information pur- 
suant to organizations and personnel of the said Democratic candi- 

Mr. Dash. So it Avas your express instruction to infiltrate various 
Democratic campaign organizations? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you know that the true identity of Mr. Jason 
Rainer was Roger Stone, an employee of the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever learn that Mr. Rainer was in fact Mr. Stone ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did. In April 1978, agents of the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation contacted me at my home in Louisville to 
arrange for an interview with myself and mv counsel pursuant to the 
activities that I had undertaken in 1972 and it was the FBI who in- 
formed me of Mr. Rainer's true identity as Roger Stone. 


Mr. Dash. The testimony before this committee that we have already 
received, Mr. McMinoway, indicates that INIr. Stone actually was an 
assistant to Mr. Bart Porter of the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi- 
dent, and I would like to read this brief reference to your employment 
that appears in the record that came from Mr. Porter's testimony at 
page 1543 of the record : 

I made total payment of about $6,000 over a 3-month period, again to Mr. Stone, 
that was passed on to a Mike. I cannot remember his last name again now. I be- 
lieve it was McMinoway from Louisville, Ky., w'ho worked in two or three of the 
primary campaigns. 

So that the record does show that not only Mr. Stone, but Mr. Porter 
of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, was in fact sending on the 
money. What financial arrangements actually were made by Mr. 
Rainer with you ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Originally there had been an agreement reached 
I would receive $1,500 a month for my services. 

Mr. Dash. Did you receive that amount ? 

Mr. Mc^NIiNOWAY. If you would refer to your tab 9 [exhibit No. 238] 
in the folder, this is the only documentation of any financial transac- 
tions between Mr. Rainer and myself. 

Mr. Dash. You are referring in tab 9 to some financial statement that 
appears on a lined piece of paper. Was this prepared by you ? 

Mr. McMiNow^AY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Does this reflect the total amount of payments that you 
received ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, it does. 

Mr. Dash. And it shows on that March 17, 1972, $983. April 14, $983. 
April 30, $683. May 12, $983. May 26, $700. June 16, $487. June 29, 
$500, and July 8, $487.75. I left the 75 cents off of an earlier one, but 
the total appearing on your accounting is $5,808.10, is that correct? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, were you aware, by the way, that Mr. Porter at the 
Committee To Re-p]lect the President identified you at the committee 
under the code name Sedan Chair II ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Not in 1972, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you later learn that ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. The staff members of this committee in- 
formed me of that. 

Mr. Dash. Were you ever aware that your reports or some of your 
reports coded Sedan Chair II were forwarded to Mr. Haldeman by 
Mr. Magruder through Gordon Strachan, Mr. Haldeman's assistant ? 

Mr. McMiNOw\\Y. I first learned that when INIr. Strachan testified 
before this committee. 

Mr. Dash. You also heard of the testimony of Mr. Strachan in the 
record, that he in fact, attached one of your reports to what he stated 
was a sophisticated intelligence plan being developed by the commit- 
tee, which he later destroyed after the break-in on June 17. But were 
you aware of this activity; that is, the fact Mr. Strachan was passing 
on this information ? 

Mr. ;McMinoway. Not in 1972, certainly. 

Mr. Dash. You learned it actually from either the FBI or staff 
consultations with us. 

Mr. McMinoway. The committee staff initially informed me of that 
and then I witnessed it on the testimony, watching the testimony m 


Louisville when Strachan testified to the fact that he had — in fact, I be- 
lieve he labeled it tab 18 of my report — had been forwarded. 

]Mr. Dash. Who did IMr. Rainer actually indicate he was working 

]Mr. McMiNowAY. On the initial contact in 1972 he informed me he 
was working for a group of concerned citizens that were interested 
in the outcome of the 1972 Presidential election. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you had any beliefs or sus- 
picions that in fact you were not working for a group of concerned 
citizens ? 

Mr. MclMiNowAY. No, sir, I feel that they were concerned. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever come to believe that yon may actually have 
been employed by the Republican Party ? 

jVIr. ]\Ic]MixowAY. Yes, sir. I began to suspect that probably after 
maybe a month of employment when the general mode of the activities 
and the form of the operation was pretty well set into full force and 
it was obvious that I was not bipartisan in any respect, in other words, 
I never worked in any Republican organizations. 

Mr. Dash. Now, is it true, Mr. MclNIinoway, that you infiltrated 
the Muskie headquarters in ]Milwaukee for the Wisconsin primary, 
the Humphrey headquarters in Philadelphia for the Pennsylvania 
primary, the McGovern headquarters in Los Angeles for the California 
primary, and McGovern headquarters in the District of Columbia, 
and after the Watergate break-in just before the Democratic con- 
vention, the INIcGovern headquarters at the Democratic convention 
in Miami ? 

Mr. IVfclNIixowAY. All of those assumptions are correct except I 
worked in the Humphrey headquarters in Los Angeles and not the 
ISIcGovern headquarters. I did have contact with McGovern people 
in California, but primarily I was sent to Los Angeles to work in 
the Humphrey campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Humphre}^? Now, did you choose each of these assign- 
ments such as the State to go to on your own or were you following 
instructions ? 

Mr. INIcMixowAY. I was following instructions. 

j\Ir. Dash. These were again instructions of Mr. Rainer who we now 
laiow as Mr. Stone. 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you get a specific instruction for each assignment or 
were the instructions covered by the initial meeting with Mr. Stone? 

Mr. McMtnoway. The itinerary of the different assignments was 
set by Mr. Rainer. In other words, he would tell me to which State 
to travel, usually to which city, he would tell me what organization 
they would like to have information about, but the actual operational 
procedures were left entirely up to me. 

Mr. Dash. Did you on a fairly regular basis, send Mv. Rainer or 
Stone materials that you were able to get from the particular head- 
quarters you had infiltrated? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, sir, the procedure Avas, I was supplied 
with a post office box in Washington, D.C., to which I would send any 
relative document or information that I would feel necessary to 
fulfill my obligatioii of iutellio:ence gathering. 

Mr. Dash. And you obtained these documents or anv materials that 
you felt necessary in your assignment from inside the headquarters 
you had infiltrated ? 


Mr. McMiNOWAY. The documents I referred to are not private or 

secret documents. These documents are documents that were planned 
for public inspection. I at no time, during the course of my employ- 
ment, copied, borrowed, stole, or removed any documents from the 
headquarters other than those which were j^iven to me by a person in 
authority to pass out this information. 

Mr. Dash. But 3^ou did obtain some of the advanced scheduling of 
the candidate, did you not ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. 1 made it a sj^ecific part of my operation 
to work whenever possible on schedulino; and advance work so that 

Mr. Dash. And you received this prior to the time that schedule 
was made public, did you not ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. In most instances, sir, I was working with the 
group of people that were making the arrangements for the schedules. 

Mr. Dash. Yes; but I mean the advantage of your having it in 
advance was that you could provide this information prior to the 
actual public publication of this information, was it not ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. You had advance intelligence? 

Mr. jVIcMinoway. The objective was to get the information before 
the newspapers printed it. 

Mr. Dash. Yes; so that actually at the time you got it, it had not 
yet been made public? 

Mr. McMinoway. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. You also got such things as copies of lists of workers, 
copies of intercoms, numbers of internal staif workers, things of that 
nature, did you not? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I tried to compile myself lists of person- 
nel w^orking in the different organizations within that organization. 

Mr. Dash. And while you were in the organization — I will get to 
your diary in a moment — wherever you could, you read whatever you 
could read that was on desks or around, and I think that sometimes 
you referred that you pumped various staff members for information. 
Is that not true ? 

Mr. MclSIiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I did try to read as much as I could and 
listen. That was one of the major sources of my information, from 
conversations with the actual staff members and organization people. 

ISIr. Dash. So that you were ti-ying to do as thorough an intelligence- 
gathering operation as you could, having infiltrated in a particular 
campaign headquarters ? 

Mr. ]\Ic]MiN0WAY. Yes, sir. When I took the job, I made it a point to 
tiy to do the job well and verify all the information I could and some- 
times I would receive information from conversations and try to verify 
them from what I read and vice versa. 

Mr. Dash. You used the word "infiltrate" when I asked you if you 
became a political spy. I am not trying to deal in semantics. When you 
obtained each of these jobs, for instance, when you went up to Wis- 
consin and joined the Muskie campaign headquarters operation in 
Milwaukee, how did you obtain the job ? 

Mr. INIcMiNowAY.The normal j:>rocednre was to start off as a volun- 
teer woT-ker in the particular organization from which I wished to 
gather information. 

Mr. Dash. And how did you represent yourself? 

Mr. McMinoway. As a volunteer worker. 

21-29G O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 8 


Mr. Dash. Interested in working for, say, the ISIuskie primary 
election ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. I progressed throughout the organiza- 
tions and throughout the campaign by being able to perform cam- 
paign organization activities very successfully. I v^^ould actually work 
for the candidate to gain the confidence of the particular organization. 

Mr. Dash. You did not, in fact, inform any of these people that you 
were, one, a Republican, and two, were being employed to come into 
that headquarters for the purpose of obtaining information to send 
either to other candidates or back to your employer ? Did you inform 
anybody that that was your role ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was never asked that, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Well, you were so successful, perhaps, that nobody even 
thought to ask. But you never volunteered that information ? 

Mr. McMiNow^AY. No ; I never volunteered that information. 

Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, the success of your operation de- 
pended upon the fact that you were able to have the Muskie people, 
for instance, in Milwaukee believe that you were a true volunteer in- 
terested in helping Muskie's candidacy ? 

Mr. MgMinoway. I would assume that that is the reason that they 
told me a lot of the stuff they did. 

Mr. Dash. Now, in addition to any materials that you might have 
sent on to Mr, Stone or Rainer, as you knew him, were you in tele- 
phone communication with him ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, I was. 

Mr. Dash. How frequent was the communication you kept with 
Mr. Stone? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. In Milwaukee, it was about on an every-Other- 
day basis. But later on in the operation, as the operation became 
more and more technical and it involved more and more information 
gatliering, it became a minimum of daily conversations, sometimes sev- 
eral times a day. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Stone was very much interested in what you were 
learning on a daily basis, then ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, some of the information that I obtained 
was rather timely. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you keep a diary in your infiltration work in 
Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania? 

Mr. McMiN0\vAY. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Dash. I think just for purposes of identification of these 
diaries, look at tab 2 [exhibit No. 231], which appears to be a diary 
beginning March 21, Milwaukee, ending INIarch 81; and then tab 4 
[exhibit No. 2331, a diary, I tliink, which appears to be one in Pliiladel- 
phia beginning April 10 and ending on April 22. I think you have had 
an opportunity to review these on prior occasions with the staff. Do 
these reflect accuratelv, copies of the diary entries you made? 

Mr. MrMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, they do. 

Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, your diarv entries were really 
handwritten and at a later time you had them typed, is that true? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, at the request of the committee. 

Mr. Dash. So what we have here is not really your diary entries, 
but a typed copy that you had made of the actual entries? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Dash. What was the purpose of keeping the diary ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY, So that I would be able to refer back. The par- 
ticular operation that I was involved in required a considerable 
amount of name-dropping and association and I was involved with 
quite a few different people and I was sometimes w^orking in two or 
tlirce different headquarters and it was necessary for me to keep a 
diary so I knew where I was on particular days and dates and times 
and where I planned to go and especially, to keep the people straight, 
the names of the people and the particular organizations they worked 

Mr. Dash. Now. after your Pennsylvania activities you moved on 
to California, the District of Columbia, and later the Miami con- 
vention, we do not have an actual diary, but summary reports of 
your activities. Did you, after the Pennsylvania activity, cease keep- 
ing a diary? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir, I went to the note system for two reasons. 
One, I was informed by a friend of mine who works in intelligence- 
gathering operations for the U.S. Government related to the reelection 
committee activities, that if you keep a lot of notes, you might lose your 
notes and somebody miglit find your notes. So I felt that the least 
amount of written material that I left lying around — what provoked 
this initial thing in my room in T/isconsin was broken into and it made 
me start to think about, you know, somebody could break in to steal 
money and find that, and it might be embarrassing if it came out dur- 
ing the time that I was working in these different organizations. 

Mr. Dash. The advice might have been well given with regard to 
the diary that was actually kept in Wisconsin and Philadelphia, which 
the committee now has in its possession. 

Mr. Haddad. INIr. Dash, he voluntarily turned that over. 

Mr. Dash. Oh, I know. 

Mr. Haddad. And no one knew that he had that. 

Mr. Dash. I know, but it was in liis possession, and he did volun- 
tarily turn that over for the record. 

In Wisconsin, what kinds of questions did Mr. Stone ask you ? What 
was he interested in obtaining? I think we had some reference in some 
earlier infoi-mation that you had given the staff, that Mr. Stone had 
questioned you about anti-Muskie activity, anti-McGovern, anti-Nixon 
activity, financial contributions to Mr. Muskie, Mr. McGovern. Is this 
generally the area you were interested in? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Basically, that was at least a part of the informa- 
tion that I tried to gather. iPersonnelwise, I was to try to obtain as 
much information on as many of the actual staff of the particular can- 
didates, a little about their background and what their specific duties 
within the organization were at that particular time. Initially, in the 
March period of time, when I was working in Milwaukee, it was of 
interest to Mr. Rainer, the contributions that Muskie was receiving, 
because this was in the gray line period right before the April 7 Fed- 
eral legislation on campaign financing came into effect and they were 
interested in the amounts of money, and, if possible, who was donating 
the money and so forth. 

Mr. Dash. Now, while you were <rathering this information in your 
role as infiltrator or as a spy, whichever you may wish to accept, you 


occasionally caused some disrui^tion or confusion in Senator Muskie's 
campaio;n activities. Is that true ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Wliat do you have reference to ? 

Mr. Dash. Let me refer you to your diary on March 28, which says 
that, the entry indicates that you took four people out to — it looks like 
"A. O. Smitli Co., to i)ass out leaflets. It was cold, so I talked them into 
drinking beer instead of passing out leaflets." I take it that may have 
been a reason— that it was cold to go in and drink beer, but at the same 
time, you saw to it that the leaflets were not passed out. Is that true? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. The leaflets were in fact not passed out. The 
motivation was not to disrupt at this particular time. It was just 
colder than hell on this particular day. 

Mr. Dash. Was it just a coincidence that tlie leaflets were not passed 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't know whether it was a coincidence or 

Mr. Dash. Well, it was in the interest of your operation that the 
leaflets were not passed out, was it not ? 

JNIr. McMixowAY. It was not in the interest of my particular opera- 
tion, but personally, I felt if they didn't get passed out, it would not 
hurt anything. 

Mr. Dash. Let's follow it up if this was not in the interest of your 
operation. Look at ISIarch 29. You say that you first went over 
to the Muskie headquarters and obtained a revised schedule of events, 
stayed at the headquarters all afternoon. Then your diary indicates 
that you went over to the Lincoln Avenue headquarters and removed 
the listing of people that were to be contacted Sunday, April 2. So 
by your removing that, those people would not be contacted on 
April 2, would they ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir; that is not indicated in the diary and 
that is in fact— after reviewing the diary — that is not the case. The 
people were still called, but I copied the list because it was a list 
of names of campaign workers and I forwarded that on to INIr. 
Rainer. That document of name^ and workers is in the material 
that I provided this committee. 

Mr. Dash. Is the entry then incorrect ? The word you used in your 
entry is "removed," not copied. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. The entry is correct, but the terminology or 
the interpretation of the terminology — by "removed" I didn't mean 
that I removed it from the headquarters, but I did in fact obtain 
a copy of it. 

Mr. Dash. Well, what I am getting at is in addition to intelligence 
gathering, there was some other sort of espionage activity you en- 
gaged in. On March 30, for instance, your diary says you went over 
to the Humphrey headquarters and erave them a Muskie schedule. 

That was not intelligence gathering. You were actually giving Hum- 
phrey headquarters Muskie schedules. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Dash. And that was for the purpose of giving them some ad- 
vantage, I take it, over INIuskie ? 

i\Ir. INIclMiNOWAY. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Dash. And on IVfarch 31, there is an entry that perhaps you 
can give us some additional explanation for. You say that you 


"went down to headquarters and diverted some election day pre- 
cinct materials." What does that mean? What did you do when you 
say in your diary you diverted some election day precinct materials? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't recall this particular instance. I don't 

Mr. Dash. Now, on March 25, 1972, you made a significant entry in 
your diary. If you could look at the bottom of the first page of the 
diary and let me read this to you, perhaps you can elaborate on this 
entry. You went to McGovern headquarters and talked to Southwick* 
about Sunday TV interview with Muskie that Southwick planned to 

Then if you go on to the next page, the top of the page, you say you 
went back to McGovern headquarters and watched McGovern people 
making signs for Sunday, like "America Needs a Leader, Not a Cry- 
baby." "The McGovern People Are Very Enthused About Marches 
Against Muskie." 

You indicated you saw these things yourself. Was this an event in 
Avhicli you were observing McGovern people actually preparing the 
posters and preparing to engage in anti-Muskie activity ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, it was. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know how they were going to use these posters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I know^ how they used them. 

Mr. Dash. Could you toll us that? Did they come out — did these 
people come out as ISIcGovern headquarters — identified as McGovern 
Avorkers ? 

Mr. ]\IcMinoway. No, sir, they didn't ; they came out as unidentified 
or unalined protesters. The scheme of the thing w^as that, to put the 
tiling in retrospect, Muskie had made a plan or had planned an ap- 
pearance on a TV Meet the Press type program that was going to be 
taped live in Milwaukee during this campaign period and the objec- 
tive of the McGovern people was to get outside of the TV station before 
Muskie went there to tape the show and have a little protest and hold up 
these types of signs, hoping to upset him. At this particular period 
of time, ]\Ir. Muskie w^as very vulnerable to heckling and protesting 
and the ])rotestin2: and heckling did in fact seem to upset him and 
cause him not to be, able to speak fluently and conduct himself in a 
controlled manner during campaigning. 

Mr. Dash. Actually, on your entiy of March 27, you write that 
"his" — referring to Muskie. 

His little speech was a disaster. Protesters started in on him as soon as he 
stood lip to talk. They had the whole crowd shouting and hollering at him in 
about 5 minutes. The amnesty question just totally ruined Muskie's whole 

Were these hecklers the same type of people you have indicated from 
]\IcGovern headquarters ? 

Mr. JNIrlMiNOAVAY. They w^ere in fact the same grou]) of people. 
March 27 is a different day and a different incident. This was at the 
University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. It w^as the same group of people 
who worked in the ISIcGovern campaign headquarters in Milwaukee. 
But it was the same type of tactics, the heckling and the signs and so 

♦Subsequent to the hearlnp, the committee received a letter from Thomas P. Southwick 
with an affidavit answering the allegations made about him by Michael McMinoway. The 
letter and affidavit appear on p. 4892. 


Mr. Dash. Did you observe any other activity of the McGovern 
people on any other candidate which was directed at one of the other 
primary candidates in this way ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did, not only in the Wisconsin primary 
but also in Florida and California. 

Mr. Dash. I am going to talk very briefly to each of the other 

In Wisconsin, just briefly tell us what you noticed in Wisconsin. 

Mr. McMiNowAY. The most outstanding thing in Wisconsin, or the 
two or three instances that you will notice on tab 2 of your sheet under 
March 23, where they had planted questions among — 

There was a debate at the University of Marquette in Milwaukee and this was 
a debate planned between representatives of the McGovern staff and representa- 
tives of the Muskie staff. The McGovern i>eople had planted questions for the — 
they had a question and answer period and they had planted questions throughout 
the crowd that they felt would embarrass the Muskie people. 

Mr. Dash. On March 23, you have in your diary that the McGovern 
people were taking down Muskie signs. Did you observe that ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, in several States. 

Mr. Dash. By the wav, how was it that while you were working and 
having infiltrated the Muskie headquarters, that you had such freedom 
of access to the McGovern headquarters ? 

Mr. McMinoavay. Because of my initial contact with the youth move- 
ment — my association with the youth movement of the McGovern 

Mr. Dash. Who was Mr. Southwick that you referred to in your 

Mr. McMinoway. He was the McGovern coordinator. 

Mr. Dash. Was he the one you had gotten to know ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I had met him at a headquarters closing 
beer drinking session. 

Mr. Dash. After the Wisconsin primary election did Mr. Stone- 
Rainer instruct you to go to Philadelphia anid infiltrate the Humphrey 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, it was several days later I received a 
procedure call that instructed me to go to Philadelphia. 

Mr. Dash. How did vou become a member of the Humphrey cam- 
paisrn activity in Philadelphia? "Wliat did you do. how did vou act? 

Mr. McMiNow^AY. Part of the procedure that I followed throughout 
the campaign activity was, the first day I would arrive in a city that I 
Avas assigned to, I would check out the locations of all the headquarters 
for all the different contending candidates and I wonVl make a chart 
of where they were, the phone numbers and so forth. What I did was, 
I found out the location of the main Humphrey headquarters in Phila- 
delphia, and T presented myself there as a volunteer. 

Mr. Dash. Who did you speak to at that time ? 

Mr. McMinoway. INIiss Gertrude Adcovitz who, T was informed, 
was in charge of the volunt^^er workers. 

Mr. Dash. Did you identify yourself with any particular name? 
"What name did you use ? 

Mr. McMinoway. In Philadelphia find throusfhout the campaign I 
used the name Michael Snow with the Humphrey people and my own 
name INIichael McMinoway with the McGovern people. 



Mr. Dash. How did you identify your occupation or work when 
you spoke to the Humphrey campaign workers ? 

]\Ir. McMiNOWAY. The Humphrey campaign people assumed I was 
a salesman. 

Mr. Dash. Did they assume it on the basis of representations you 
made ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No ; I am not really sure how this particular — ^the 
first time that I actually knew that they thought I was a salesman 
was when I read an article in the Louisville Courier, yesterday, in 
wliicli it said ]Miss Adcovitz referred to me as a salesman but I do not 
recall using that modus. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever tell her that you were at least a business- 
man who worked during the day and you could give them volimteer 
work at night? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I worked day, night, nighttime and 
throughout. It was never really asked, they were grateful that they 
had a volunteer and they were not going to question 

Mr. Dash. But in Wisconsin you represented yourself to be a volun- 
teer interested in helping the Humphrey campaign ? 

Mr. iVIcJMiNowAY. Yes, sir. 

INIr. Dash. "Was your assignment the same in Philadelphia as it was 
in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. INIcMiNGWAY. Yes, sir, initially it was. 

Mr. Dash. Did vou have the same type of reporting schedule with 
Mr. Stone ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, up until midway through the Pennsyl- 
vania or Philadelphia assignment, I would contmue to send in docu- 
ments and so forth. 

Mr. Dash. Your Philadelphia diary which you have identified as an 
accurate record that you kept, indicates that you were put in 
charge of the phone bank and block captain programs, what were these 
programs ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, the Humphrey headquarters in Phila- 
delphia had set up a phone bank headquarters separate from the main 
headquarters. It was a building, 2-, .3-story building. On the second 
floor there were 20 phones, they had opei'ators at these phones and they 
used a system that Mayor Rizzo initiated in his successful candidacy 
for the mayor of Philadelphia, whereby they would take cross-index 
cards of streets or blocks as they referred to them and he would call 
all the people on the respective blocks until they found a worker that 
would volunteer to be a block captain and represent the Humphrey 
people in that area. The purpose of this was to have an outlet for 
their literature and their campaign propaganda and to help get out 
the vote on election day and so forth. 

Mr. Dash. And you were put in charge of that phone bank opera- 
tion as supervisor? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was assigned to help supervise it. I was not 
put in charge but 

Mr. Dash. Now, after you had that assignment of supervisor you 
began to sort of mess up the program, did you not ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I did not help the situation any. 

Mr. Dash. Let me just read on April 11 in your Philadelphia diary, 
down toward the bottom you wrote, "I promptly put people on calling 


and duplicating cards that had been done by the day shift." In other 
words, there was a day shift that called people to become block 
captains and you had people call the same people in the evening? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. They had stacks of cards similar to 
3-by-5 index cards, and previous to the time I came o\-er there the 
thing was not working very successfully, but I just stopped after 
that day — the cards that were there the day I came were the ones 
that were there the day I left. I never went to the stockroom to get 
new supplies of cards. 

Mr. Dash. But look at April 12, it does not show a passive act. 
You wrote on April 12: "I rearranged the cards again, that night 
shifts would recall a lot of day shift cards." I take it that is an accu- 
rate statement of what you did I 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is the way I read it, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, the impact and the effect of this repetitive callmg 
you reflect in your diary on April 14, and you write : 

Repetition of calls is starting to aggravate the volunteer block captains. The 
captains are getting called two or three times and it is beginning to bother 
them. Some captains have already quit because of the repeated calls. 

So this repetition did have a disruptive effect in getting block 

Mr. Minoway. Do you want me to answer that ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Again on April 20 you state that, "We put some lists 
on the phone tables that had already been called so that repeat calls 
will be made tonight," so this was continued again. 

Actually, this caused quite a bit of trouble for Mr. Plumphrey be- 
cause- — do you not indicate on April 11 that Mr. "Humphrey was spend- 
ing one-third of his budget on the phone bank and literature packets 
that the block captains would distribute ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. This is the information that the Humphrey peo- 
ple had given me. 

Mr. Dash. So that causing this disruption, in terms of repeated 
calls and getting block captains to be annoyed and some quitting, was 
taking quite a bite out of the expense that Mr. Humphrey had allotted 
for the use of the phone banks. Is that true ? 

Mr, ]McMixowAY. Yes, sir, it was. 

Mr. Dash. On April 22 you wrote that you yourself called people 
out of the Humphrev headquarters and urged them to vote for Jackson. 
You did do that? 

;Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. That was 3 days right before the primary election. This 
is more than intelligence gathering, is it not ? 

Mr. ]SIc]MixowAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Your diar^' also indicates that you played a role in hiring 
pei"Sons for the phone bank in a later operation. '\Aniat did you mean 
on April 18 in your diary when you state 'T really lined up some 
winners." "What did you mean by winners? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Evidently these people were of low caliber 

Mr. Dash. Winners for vou. losers for them, rigrht? 


Mr. ^Ic^IiNOWAY. Possibly. 

Mr. Dash. On April 19 you wrote in your diary that : 

Went to the phone bank and checked on my workers as they were waiting for 
me at the door. I got them to separate the union and Negro cards into uneven 
rationed stacks. The 60 people lined up yesterday did not show up for work, only 
24 came. The cards were so placed that anyone calling them could not distinguish 
between a Negro call sheet or a union call sheet. The call sheet is the speech 
read to the person called. 

So as a result of that, I take it that some union people re^ieived a 
call that was directed to black voters and a black voter received a call 
directed to a union member? 

]Mr. McMixowAY. In some instances. 

Mr. Dash. I think you also were able, with all this, to win quite a 
bit of confidence in the Philadelphia headquarters. 

Mr. :Mc]Minoway. Yes, sir. The jobs that I did with :Miss Adcovitz 
and with the other staff members were always carried out to the best 
of my ability to be successful for the Humphrey candidacy, anything 
that i did that they specifically instructed me to do was done correctly. 

Mr. Dash. I take it, from what we have just referred to on the 
phone bank, some of these things were not done to carry out the 
Humphrey activities successfully ? 

Mr. ]Mc^IiNOWAY. To put the situation into context, the phone bank 
situation was a mess when I got there. There was no proper superWsion 
by the Humphrey staff conducted in that area. They spent a lot of 
money paying the expenses of the phone bank but they spent very 
little time supervising it and no real direct orders Avere given to the 
people working there as to the proper way of carrying it out. The 
phone bank system was new to me when I got there. I did use this 
opportunity to learn about it and so that in the future I would under- 
stand what this type of a setup was with the block captain. 

Mr. Dash. Whatever bad situation it was, you took advantage of 
that also to keep it that way. 

]SIr. McMixowAY. I didn't take advantage of it to keep it that way, 
sir. It was just my intention from the outset not to do anything that 
would really jeopardize my position or uncover my 

Mr. Dash. If you were a true volunteer, really tr\'ing to help the 
Humphrey activity and you would have seen the fact that these vari- 
ous calls had been made, you would not have arranged cards to have 
people called again and yon would not have permitted a situation 
where the cards would have been so disarraj'ed that black voters would 
get union messages and union voters would get back citizens 

Mr. IMcMiNowAY. I think that is obvious. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Now, in fact you were really so successful in 
winning the confidence of those you were working with that in your 
diary on April 13 you will note that you wrote : 

I went over to the Adelphia Hotel where I met ex-Mayor Jim Tate. He is so 
thankful I am helping at the phone bank. He invited me to a big party election 
night. He told me they were depending on me to get the sample ballots dis- 
tributed to block captains. 

That was quite a commendation on your role. 

At that time, by the way, I take it you did not inform ex-Mayor 
Tate what your real identity was ? 


Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. You accepted this compliment as a volunteer for Mr. 

Look at April 20, where you say that, "After lunch Sam Parelman, 
national coordinator from Washington came by and talked to me 
about working in California. Parelman called Joe" is it "Cerrell" ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes. 

Mr. Dash [continues reading] : 

Joe Cerrell the L.A. Chairman for me and told him I would work in L.A. 
headquarters. Mike Polin sent L.A. headquarters a big letter introducing me 
as "an avid Humphrey supporter that could be trusted in any project." 

I think your crowning victory in terms of gaining confidence, you 
report in your Philadelphia report which I think is on tab 5 [exhibit 
No. 234] where you indicate that after your infiltration of the Hum- 
phrey headquarters by complimenting the elderly office manager, 
Gertrude Adcovitz you were a dedicated Humphrey supporter. 

Once I gained her confidence by working on menial projects, I was liome free. 
It has continued to amaze me how far you can go inside headquarters by just 
walking in off the street. Gertrude told me one night while we were working 
late on our separate goals that "Once in every campaign a great worker walks 
in off the street and really helps in the campaign." 

And she was referring to you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is in the report ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Right. Then you add the interesting comment, "I often 
wonder how many great workers were also serving a dual role." 

Now did you also cause some confusion in the mailing to block 
captains ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Specifically what are you referring to, the 

Mr. Dash. Let me refer you to April 20, where you say that "The 
mailing today" — second page of the April 20 diary entry, "The mail- 
ing today was successful. The block captains will receive the mailing 
Monday that should go to ward leaders." 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; I would like to point out that in the 
diary it mentions Mike Polin, who was also — he was in fact a delegate 
to the national convention for the Plumphrey canipaign. He was the 
titled supervisor of the headquarters. In other words he was the one 
officially in charge of this headquarters and he is the one who conducted 
the distribution of those sample ballots and so forth, and unfortunately 
for him, with no political experience he did not know the difference 
in the vertical and horizontal voting machine on the sample ballots. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know them ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Dash. You took no steps, of course, to correct it? 

Mr. INIcMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And therefore when you said "The mailing today is suc- 
cessful," this is again successful for you but not very successful for 
them ? 

Mr. McMtnoway. I am not sure on this particular instance whether 
I was referring to the fact that it was successful from my standpoint 
that it was not done correctly or 

Mr. Dash. Look at 


Mr. McMiNOWAY [continuing]. Or in fact all the mailing did in 
fact go out. 

Mr. Dash. The sentence that follows says : "The block captains will 
receive the mailing today that should go to the ward leaders." 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Again a separate sentence. I unfortunately can't 
remember things explicitly. Some of the details you asked me about 
I remember as definite uncooperative activity but not this particular 

Mr. Dash. All right. Now, finally before you left Philadelphia you 
did see to it that some needed workers that were supposed to work at 
Humphrey headquarters a day or two before the primary election 
never went there. Look at your diary entry of April 22, where you state 
that — the last part of the entry : "The phone bank workers were sup- 
posed to help tomorrow and Monday at Adelphia" which I take it is 
the headquarters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash [continues reading] . "And I told them we would not need 
I them because the phone bank is closed today.'' That meant those partic- 
ular Avorkers, which "was just prior to the primary election, wei-e not 
available on the day they were needed. 

]Mr. INIcMixoAVAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, while you were working inside the Humphrey head- 
I quarters, did you learn of a person named Mr. Zimmer? 

Mr. ]McMixowAY. In the Humphrey headquarters? 

]Mr. Dash. AVorking either in ^NIcGovern headquarters or any of the 
other Democratic candidates' headquarters. Did you know of a pereon 
by the name of Mr. Zimmer? 

Mr. ]\IcMiNowAY. Xo, sir, I don't believe so. 

Mr. Dash. Did you learn while working in the Humphrey headquar- 
Iters of any heckling Mr. Humphrey experienced in his appearances in 

Mr. ^NIcMixowAY. Practically every time i\Ir. Humphrey appeared, 
especially before any youth or younger oi'ganizations or groups he was 
heckled and protests took place, and oftentimes objects were thrown 
; at him. 

INIr. Dash. Did you know of a Mr. Donald Segretti ? 

ISIi'. McMixow^vY. Xo, sir, I did not. 

]Mr. Dasit. Were you awai-e there was a Segretti operative named 

Zimmer in Philadelpliia ? We had read into the record through j\Ir. 

■ Segretti, a statement that he had called ]Mr. Humphrey's headquar- 

I ters representing himself to be a reporter and blaming the Muskie 

j people for the hecklers and the disrupters. 

Did you know that Humphrey believed, or did you have any infor- 
mation that you received that the Humphrey workers believed that 
some of the Democratic candidates were actually creating this trouble 
foi' them ? 

Mr. ^NIcMixowAY. Yes, sir. I know in fact that some of the Demo- 
crats, as I testified to earlier, some of the other Democrats were in 
fact sabotaging Democrat campaigns. 

^Ir. Dash. Did you know, in fact there were some agents actually 
hired by a Republican worker, ]Mr. Segretti, who was creating some 
of this heckling for Mr. Humphrey ? 


Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir; I did not hear that until I heard of it 
before this committee. 

Mr. Dash. After the Pennsylvania primary election were you in- 
structed to infiltrate the McGovern campaign in Los Angeles for the 
California primaiy by Mr. Stone or Rainer? 

Mr. ]\Ic]NriNowAY. No, sir, I was specifically instructed to follow up 
my contact with the Humphrey people and go to Los Angeles and work 
with Humphrey people, although while I was in California I ran into 
a lot of the people. I stayed in Santa Monica and there was a head- 
quailei's right down the street fi'om my hotel. 

INIr. Dash. So you were in the Humphrey headquarters but you were 

Mr. ]McMixowAY. In contact with McGovern people. 

Mr. Dasii. I think you told us earlier while in California you used 
two names, your own name, Michael ]Mc]Minoway, and Michael Snow. 
In the California campaign were you registered in the hotel under 
both names ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. In Wisconsin after I became successful 
in infiltrating the McGovern and Humphrey headquarters it was nec- 
essary I register in a hotel by both names. 

Mr. Dash. So I take it if Humphrey people wanted to call Michael 
Snow and the McGovern people, if they wanted to get Michael !Mc- 
Mirioway, they would get you and that was you ? 

Mr. ]\Ic]MixowAY. Yes, sir ; those two names appeared on the regis- 
tration, right. 

Mr. Dash. Was your assignment again the same in Los Angeles as 
in the Milwaukee activity and the Philadelphia activity ? 

Mr. MclNIiNowAY. Basically it was. 

Mr. Dash. Were you keeping up a regular reporting schedule with 
Mr. Stone? 

Mr. McMiNOw^\Y. Yes, sir. But this time we were on a daily phone 
conversation system. The mailings and the written report system had 
been dropped. 

Mr. Dash. Did you become aware of an anti-Humphrey ]:)amphlet 
showing him holding a big fish with the slogan, "A Fishy Smell for 
the White House"? [Previously entered as committee exhibit No. 
219 and appears in Book 10, p. 4299.1 

Mr. ]\Ic]MiNOWAY. No, sir ; not until Monday morning wlien members 
of this staff asked me about it. 

Mr. Dash. I think when we asked you about it you said you were 
aware there was an anti-Humphrey pamphlet, you saw it. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir ; I knew of the pamphlet's existence, but 
I did not know who had 

Mr. Dash. I am not asking you whether you knew who had actually 
instigated the pamphlet or produced it, but you knew about the pam- 
phlet while working for Humphrey. 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What was the Humphrey staff reaction to that pamphlet ? 

Mr. MclMiNOw^w. Well, not only this pamphlet but other incidents 
that took place in California. By the time of the California election it 
had pretty well narrowed dowm to Humphrey versus McGovern and 
it wasn't a very wide open field, just those two, and there was consid- 
erable amounts of hard feelinsfs toward the other side. 


t Mr. Dash. Just speaking for the moment of the pamphlet before we 
i^et to other matters, was there a feeling from the Humphrey people 
;this was a INIcGovern trick 'l 

Mr. IMdNIiNGWAY. Yes, I believe at that time they thought it had 
been put out by the McGovern people. 

Mr. Dash. I think you have indicated that you at least heard of this 
from the testimony here and our committee has already received evi- 
dence that this particular pamphlet was the work or product of ]\Ir. 
Donald Segretti and his operatives who were working for a "White 
House official, Mr. Chapin. 

Did you observe any heckling that Mr. Humphrey had to go 
through while in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Dash. Give us an example of that. 

Mr. McMinoway. Probably the two best examples of campaign heck- 
ling was on one occasion where there was a — I believe it was a $100- 
fi-plate dinner at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles given to 
raise campaign funds for the Humphrey group, and on this occasion 
the Santa Monica McGovern youth workers massed into a little van 
and drove down to the Beverly Hilton and marched up and down in 
front of the hotel where the dinner was going to be held with the pur- 
pose of trying to harass the guests for this dinner. 

Another occasion, in fact, that I can remember where I was present, 
was Humphrey and his wife were to — had a prearranged press, what I 
jail a videotape commercial. They had called a bunch of press people 
ivho were extremely favorable to them, and they had planned a series 
Df tours through nursing homes and througliout the Los Angeles area, 
and the idea was that Humphrey would go in and show his deep con- 
cern for all the old people and the sick and the downtrodden and the 
aewspaper people would, you know, take pictures of this, and use it 
in news and then they also had Humphrey people taping these events 
to use for a TV commercial they planned to use later in the campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Did this cause bitterness among the workers and ^Slr. 
Humphrey himself as to other members of the Democratic candidates' 

Mr. McMiNowAY. There were times when Mr. Humphrey would 
become slightly irritable. Mr. Humphrey, of all the Democratic candi- 
dates that I worked for or with, or in association, or in the same orga- 
nization, Humphrey could handle the hecklers and the demonstrators 
much bettor than, say, ]Muskie or jNIcixOvern. Even INIcGovern, with 
his youthful campaign strategy and all the youthful workers he had 
around, he really could not handle, you know, the direct protest against 

Mr. Dash. This particular one you just told us about involving the 
old people's appearance, did this affect Mr. Humphrey very much? 

Mr. McMinoway. I think the major effect of this was that it dis- 
rupted the schedule and it was not pei-missible for the cameras to film 
it in quite as smooth a manner as they had hoped. With the disruptions 
outside, the noise, it was impossible to have audio w^ith the video be- 
cause of some of the obscene things that were said and the language 
and the tones — especially the tone and attitude of the demonstrators. 
Often in California, demonstrations that I noticed were more verbal 
and had a more violent attitude than some of the earlier ones. The ones 

4494 ; 

directed against Muskie, for instance, that we mentioned in Milwau-i 
kee were sim]:)ly efforts to just s)\oiit him down. But by the time that 
I got to California, traveling with the campaign, the demonstrations 
had become more personal and more deceit oriented. They were spe- 
cifically directed at individuals and had slur-type remarks. 

Mr. Dash. I think the committee already has received some evidence 
from Mr. Segretti that his assignment to his operatives was to arrange 
for hecklers against any one of the candidates who would appear, mak- 
ing it appear like it is coming from one of the other candidates. Did 
you know what the source of some of this heckling was ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. The only sources of planned protest that^ 
I knew of were the ones that McGovern had planned against Muskie 
in Wisconsin and against Humphrey in California. 

Mr. Dash. Now, after the California primary, which was just prior 
to the break-in at Watergate, when did you learn of the break-in and 
where were you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I returned from California and there was a period 
of time after California when speculation, not only my own specula- 
tion but speculation around the country, was that McGovern had man- 
aged to obtain enough delgates to get the nomination. That was the 
last primary State, and there was a period of about 2 weeks between 
the time I came home from California until the next event on the cal- 
endar of the year would take place, which was the Democratic Conven- 1 
tion in Miami, and I went on a little rest and recreation to my favorite 
fishing place in Kentucky and I was more or less camped out at the 
lake. I first learned of the Watergate break-in upon my i-eturn home 
when I picked up the local papers there in Louisville and read the 
headlines that I 

Mr. Dash. Did that cause you some concern when you read that ? 

Mr. INIclMixowAY. Yes, sir, it caused me a great deal of concern. 

Mr. Dash. Why? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Well, basically, because as I indicated earlier, I 
had suspicioned that the MO of the operation I was undertaking was 
at least, if not Republican initiated, it was at least in the same phi- 
losophy and strategy of, at least, my Republican beliefs and that it was 
not geared to help any Democrats but merely to observe their opera- 
tions. When it was disclosed or when I read the newspapers and started 
hearing the news that it was disclosed that some of the members of the 
Watergate people, or the people that had been apprehended inside the 
Watergate headquarters were affiliated with the Republican Party, it ! 
caused me to have suspicions that possibly not only did they an intelli- 
gence-gathering operation, but possibly, they had other operations as 

Mr. Dash. What did you do after you became concerned ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That particular evening — which was a Sunday 
evening — I began to call the number that I had previously used to 
contact Mr. Rainer in Washington. 

Mr. Dash. What happened ? Were you able to contact him ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I was not. The phone had been discon- 
nected. According to the operator, it was disconnected that very 

Mr. Dash. Were you later able to contact him ? 


Mr. McMixowAY. I was not able to contact him, but 2 days later, he 
contacted me. We had a conversation concerning my concern over 
these suspicions. 

Mr. Dash. As a result of those conversations, did you come to the 
District of Columbia ? 

INIr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I was very reluctant to continue any of 
the activities that I had, at least until I was sure myself that I could 
investigate what was going on and find out — as I say, I was not aware 
of all the details of the Watergate thing. I had been away for some 
time. He instructed me that if I would come to Washington, he would 
not — he assured me first, that I had not partaken of any illegal activi- 
ties, nor was his group partaking of any. lie instructed me that if I 
would come to Washington, he would arrange a meeting with me and 
his boss so that his boss could, in fact, reaffirm his convictions that this 
was legal. 

Mr. Dash. Did you get such a reassurance ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I came to Washington and received a 
call in my hotel anonymously one night. The man identified himself 
merely as INIr. ]\I, just for the matter of having something, a reference, 
for me to contact, and he reassured me that the organization I was 
working with was not involved in any illegal activities and. quite 
strenuously, passed on to me the fact that they were not, in fact, con- 
nected with the people that were apprehended. 

Mr, Dash. My. MclNIinoway, I think what was striking to you and, 
as you say, causing you some concern, was the break-in at the Demo- 
cratic National Committee headquarters and, I take it, the placing of 
bugs there. AYliat occurred, and I think this committee has already 
received evidence of that, was that there was a surreptitious entry 
into the headquarters and the placing of microphones in telephones. 
Now, do you see much difference between, say, a secret entry into a 
headquarters and the placing of microphones to hear information 
and your own activity of entering a hoadquartei-s through a misrepre- 
sentation and hearing and actually seeing activity? As a matter of 
fact, were you not actually more effective than what was done in the 
Democratic National Committee headquarters? You were a more 
flexible receiver of information by sound and a much more flexible re- 
ceiver of information by sight? Were you not, in a sense, a human bug 
or a human camera infiltrating a Democratic headquartei-s? 

Mr. McMinoway. Your question got rather lengthy, but to answer, 
as I understand it, the main point of your questioning is, yes. I feel a 
great deal of difference between what I did and the illegal acts of the 
people that were caught inside the Democratic headquarters. To me, 
there is a lot of difference in breaking the law and in breaking con- 
fidence. I merely obtained information that was voluntarily given to 
me. I did not twist anybody's arm, I never broke into any place, I never 
bugged any pliones or used any kind of electronic surveillance at all. 
The information I obtained was obtained because I was there at the 
time. It was like the newspapers. Because they are ])resent at the hear- 
ings and because they have so far been able to obtain information of 
prehearing testimony, and so forth, I would not consider them spies 
and I would not consider them doing anything illegal. That is their 
job^to report. That was my job; to report on the activities of the 
Democratic candidates. 


Mr. Dash. I am not suggesting; that any of tliese laws apply to you, 
but by analogy of the law of theft, there is a law of larceny, which is I' 
taking of property, and then the law of obtaining things by false 
pretenses, in which you do not have to break into any place, but it is 
the misplacing of confidence and a misrepresentation. Would you think [ 
that if Ave were to consider legislation, that just as in the theft law, i 
where the various State legislatures and the Congress have felt that i 
actually, theft of information or theft of property, is the same whether 
one picks it up without the knowledge of an individual or whether one i 
gets it by deceit and misrepresentation ? 

jNIr. ]\Ic]MiNow^VY. One point I think needs to be brought out, at least 
from my standpoint, is that you are putting a lot of emphasis on ob- 
taining this information by misrepresentation. In fact, in 1972, that 
was not really, in my opinion, the key to my being able to obtain this 
information. It was not the fact that I misrepresented myself as a 
Humphrey worker or that I misrepresented myself as a salesman or 
any other misrepresentation. The reason I got the information was be- 
cause I was there. The reason I was there is because I was a good pre- 
cinct campaign worker. 

JNIr. Dash. Let us put it this way. If you had gone into the Humphrey 
headquarters in Philadelphia, the Muskie headquarters in Wisconsin, 
the Humphrey headquarters in Los Angeles, and truly identified your- 
self as who you were, do you think you would have been allowed to 
work in that headquarters ? 

Mr. INIcMixowAY. I would assume not. but I never used methods of 
misrepi-esentation or lying. They never asked me. 

Mr. Dash. You indicated you wanted to be a volunteer for Hum- 
phrey. Was that a true statement ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did, in fact, volunteer and I did con- 
siderable work. 

Mr. Dash. You were following instructions, you had an assignment, 
you were being paid by somebody else to do that. You were not a volun- 
teer. You were paid at least the amount you have indicated? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. I was paid to do surveillance and intelligence 
work, but I was a volunteer in that particular headquarters. They were 
not paying me. I received no money or compensation. 

Mr. Dash. You were paid to be somebody else's volunteer, right? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Dash. After you were reassin-ed that you weren't doing any- 
thing wrong, you did work in the McGovern headquarters in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia for a while ? 

]Mr. McMtnoway. Yes, sir. I was called to Washington, as I say, pri- 
marily for the conversation between the unknown person and myself 
and the reaffiiTnation that I would not be involved in any illegal activi- 
ties. There was a period of about 9 days before the convention started. 
One of the results of the convei-sation I had with the gentleman in 
Washington was that the plans had already been previously made for 
me to go from California to Miami and as I understand it, the reser- 
vations at the hotels were made and the general pattern of the events 
was already established. 

Mr. Dash. And did you go on to the Miami convention ? 

Mr. McMtnoway. Yes, and therefore, I did agree to continue that 
one last assignment. But when I went to Florida, it was with the 
stipulation that that would be my last assignment. 


Mr. Dash. All riojht. You did ^o on to the Miami convention and 
what position did you obtain in the McGovern camp in the Miami 
convention ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. I eventually became a member of the security stafi 
in McGovern headquai-ters. 

Mr. Dash. Very briefly, what did that permit you to do? 

How did you get that position, by the way ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, I followed, as I say, the same procedura 
I was in Florida about 5 days before the convention. I used this time 
to amass information on where different delegations were staying, 
where different headquarters were, the locations, and so forth. This in- 
formation I did not receive from Mr. Rainer. I had to dig this infor- 
mation out myself. 

After I found out the location of the McGovern headquarters in — in 
Washington, while I w^as w^orking, I met quite a few people on the 
administrative staff' of the McGovern headquarters and I did work in 
the Washington McGovern national headquarters. It was just a transi- 
tion physically from here to Florida and I just took up the same type of 
activities. By this time I had become a familiar face. 

Mr. Dash. Actually, how important a security post did you have? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't know how important you — when you say 

Mr. Dash. Well, where were you stationed ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Throughout the Doral Hotel. 

Mr. Dash. Were you also stationed up on the 16th floor, where per- 
sons had to appear it' they w^anted to go up on the 17th floor, w^here Mr. 
McGovern had a suite ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was on the 16th floor — this is, I believe, a mis- 
understanding through the press and maybe through some of the 
earlier conferences that we have had. I was stationed on one occasion 
on the 16th floor, but primarily, I Avas stationed on the I7th floor, 
wdiere McGovern 's suite of rooms and the situation room and JSIr. 
Mankiewicz' room and Mr. Hart's room and most of the top-level 
staff people were stationed. 

Mr. Dash. Look at your — I think it is tab 8 [exhibit No. 237], in 
which apparently you had, at least according to your own statement, 
quite a bit of control. You stated : 

Once I was on the staff. I had even a better chance to go throughout the 
building. For three nights, T was a guard on the penthouse floor — 

Which I take it is the 17th floor — 

that McGovern was staying on. I had complete control over who was allowed 
on the floor and how long they stayetl. The Secret Service men assigned to 
McGovern cooperated with me and if I said someone could not come on the 
floor, then they were not allowed on the floor. And I obtained a list of everyone 
on McGovern's staff and what he did. I got copies of Secret Service clearance 
list and I had access to all McGovern's convention operations rooms. 

Is that correct ? That is in your report ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. That is correct to the extent that I did 
not have total, complete control of who came on that floor. I could 
certainly hold up the people. The Secret Service's instructions were 
they were primarily concerned with the physical safety of the can- 
didate. They worked with us in cooperation with — we had a com- 
mand post at the staircase entrance to the I7th floor. Wlien someone 
would present himself at that door, thev would identify themselves, 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 9 


identify tlic person they wanted to speak to, and we would jjo tlirongh 
the pi'ocedure of contacting: tliat ])Pi'3on and see if they would be per- 
mitted on the floor. If I told a Secret Service man Mv. McGovern or 
Mr. whoever on that floor does not want to see this particular individ- 
ual, tlie Secret Service people were there ready and willing and able 
to assist us in removino; the jjeople from the stairwell. 

Mr. Dash. Also accordin<i: to your report, you indicated that you 
had such access that yon actually spent ])art of an evenin<; in Senator 
McGovern's suite, actually watching TV with him as he was watch- 
ing the California delegate vote? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. By the time of the California challenge 
vote on Monday evening, I had become at least recognizable even by 
the Senator himself. I had pi-^vious to this had several chats with 
him in moments of passing in the hall and the different operations 
rooms and so forth in the building. 

]Mr. Dash. Actually, you comment toward the lx)ttom of your Flor- 
ida report : 

It is amaziiiR how easy it would be to be right in the midst of all the opera- 
tions and planning and yet be an enemy. 

Mr. MgIMixoway, That is in the statement. 

Mr. Dasit. I take it you considered yourself an enemy, did you not? 

Mr. McMixowAY. "Enemy" may not be tlie proper word. I def- 
initely do not agree with the political philosophies of George 

Mr, Dash. But you were there as an infiltrator and to gather in- 
formation. Therefore, you were doing political espionage work, were 
you not? 

Mr. McMixow^AY. I was doing political intelligence gathering. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have, by the way, as a result of this — did you 
receive a McGovern staff button which you wore, "McGovern Staff 
Convention '72-' ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, there were three types of staff buttons 
initially designed to designate the different levels of staff importance 
and at one time or other at the convention, I had all three different 
buttons. These were given to me by McGovern staff people. 

Mr. Dash. You had all three? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. By the way, the value of these staff buttons was just 
not the button itself, but they also permitted you to gain access to 
certain places, did they not? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, they did. 

Mr. Dash. And the more restrictive the button, the higher the button 
allowed you through places where the Secret Service people would ordi- 
narily stop others. Is that not true ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir; during my entire tenure with the Mc- 
Govern security force in Florida, I was never challenged in any way 
as to access to any particular party. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you got this button only because you represented 
yourself to be a volunteer for Mr. McGovern and were working on 
his behalf. Is that not true ^. 

Mr. McMixowAY. Xo, sir; I don't really agree with that. I got 
the button because I was on the security staff. I don't think the mis- 
representation is the reason they gave me the button. The reason 


they gave me the button was because I was assigned to that par- 
ticular job. All of the Secret Service people that were assigned to 
guard George McGovern were either American Party registrants or 
Republican registrants. There was not a single Democrat on his whole 
Secret Service force. 

Mr. Dash. You wouldn't be a security man unless you had indicated 
that you Avere an active worker for Mc(jovern, is that not true ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. If I had not been participating in the opera- 
tions, I doubt seriously if they would have given me the button. I 
know of no one in the Republican headquarters that would have them. 

Mr. Dash. Let me just ask you, while you were working in Demo- 
crat headquarters at the Miami convention, what, if anything, did you 
observe or overhear concerning the employment of any women to in- 
fluence delegates ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. There were instances that I remember of 
women being present that were not explicitly staff people assigned to 
secretarial or administrative duties in the hotel. 

Mr. Dash. Is that all you remember? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. There was a situation in the Doral Hotel 
where there was a hospitality room set up for the delegates to come in 
and be hospitable and drink and talk and discuss issues, or, you know, 
just anything they wanted to do. On frequent occasions, I stopped by 
this particular room primarily to see who was there, and on different 
occasions, I noticed people that I would classify as prostitutes or 
people with, at least if not prostitutes, they were at least people with 
low moral standards. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever overhear any staff member suggest that 
such prostitutes or people with low moral standards be used for in- 
fluencing delegate votes ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir ; not in a policymaking type of conversa- 
tion, I did not. 

Mr. Dash. In any conversation ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Several people on the staff had talked about, not 
necessarily the obtaining of any of these types of people, but they did 
in fact, I am sure, know that these people existed in the building and 
they never instructed us to remove these people from the building. 

Mr. Dash. Did you, in fact, drive a delegate with women in a car, 
a McGovem car ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; I was instructed by a staff member who 
I cannot recall specifically to use one of the transportation pool cars 
to take a delegate from the Doral Hotel to the Playboy Plaza, which 
is maybe a 15-minute drive up the road. 

Mr. Dash. When I refer to a McGovern car, what kind of car was 
it ? Was this leased to the campaign headquarters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; they had a whole fleet of cars that they 
had rented to provide transportation for delegates to and from, to 
provide staff in assisting people with transportation and access. As 
you may recall, the Doral Hotel was directly adjacent to the Fon- 
tainebleu Hotel where the national official Democratic headquarters 
were and the convention was some 5 miles away and it was necessary 
to have cars to use foi- transportation from the Doral to the Fontaine- 
bleu to other deleo^ations' hotels and so forth. 


Mr. Dash. Your testimony is not that Senator McGovern was aware 
of any of this kind of operation ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, it is not. 

Mr. Dash. The women that were in the car that you drove, are these 
the kind of women that you were telling us about ji little while earlier, 
who were either prostitutes or women of low morals ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Definitely. 

Mr. Dash. Who else was in the car with them ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. The delegate that I was assigned to drive to the 
Playboy Plaza. 

Mr. Dash. Just one final question at this time. In the course of your 
assignment in Wisconsin. Pennsylvania, California, District of Co- 
lumbia, and Miami, you did in fact, as you say, overtly misrepresent, 
allow persons to believe that you were a volunteer working for the 
particular candidate and did not inform these people that you were 
a paid intelligence gatherer for somebody else you later believed to be 
the Republican Party. Is that a true statement? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, that is fairly accurate. 

Mr. D.vsH. And as a result of your not informing these people of 
that or actually allowing your true identity not to be known, you were 
able to obtain valuable information and materials from these various 
headquarters ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Not necessarily materials. I never removed ma- 
terials or documents 

Mr. Dash. Some of these materials were advance schedules; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir; but I never, in the course of the activi- 
ties, when you refer to materials, in relation to some of the previous 
testimony given before this committee, I did not remove that type of 
material with the intent of stealing or countermanding the materials. 
The materials that I removed Avere materials that were printed up for 
distribution and these materials would eventually be distributed to the 

Oftentimes, I would get them as soon as they were printed up and 
they would not be distributed until maybe 2 or 3 days later. 

Mr. Dash. You didn't remove the materials. It was information that 
you read and became knowledgeable about that you were able to get 
because of your infiltrated position and were able to convey that infor- 
mation to Mr. Stone or Mr. Rainer. is that true ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. I did obtain important information, or I 
felt it was important, that I passed along to Mr. Rainer. 

Mr. Dash. And you did obtain such things as all these different types 
of buttons that you mentioned ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions at this time. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Thompson. 

Senator Raker. Wait a minute. Mr. Chairman. He is not Senator 
Thompson, Mr. Chairman, and I get wary of anybody who is called 
that who comes from Tennessee. 

Senator Ervix. I was inadvertent in thus demoting him and reduc- 
ing him to a very lowly state. It was an act of inadvertence. I apologize 
to him and recognize him for what he is, minority counsel. [Laughter.] 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. I am placated and he is humiliated. 


Mr. Thompson. Anytime you want to make that mistake, Senator, 
it is perfectly all right with me. 

Mr. McMinoway, as I understand it, you didn't know that you 
were being referred to as "Sedan Chair II'' ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir; I wasn't using any code names per se. 
These military SIA-type code names — I never used those during the 
course of my employment. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you have any contact with anyone in the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect besides Mr. Stone or Mr. Rainer. 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Xo, sir; during the operations I did not. The 
only other contact that was ever made to me was the initial call by 
Martin Blackwell setting up the meeting with Mr. Rainer and the 
telephone call in Washington. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Blackwell, I assume, did not explain to you 
his true situation with regard to his connection with the Committee 
To Re-Elect or any other organization? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. When you refer to •'true"' I do not know whether 
it was true or not. He told me he really did not know, you know, the 
specifics about this group or about the assignments, and to this point 
it has not been made readily available to me whether Mr. Blackwell 
was in fact a member of the Committee To Re-Elect. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever have any contact, either directly or 
indirectly, with anyone at the ^Miite House ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever have any contact, either directly or 
indirectly, with anyone in the Republican Xational Committee? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. "\"\lien you were working in Wisconsin, California, 
Pennsylvania, or any other State, did you ever have any contact with 
any local Republican leaders, to work with them on your project? 

!Mr. McMiNOWAY. Only the ones that were working, there was quite 
a bit in Wisconsin especially, they have no party registration-type 
primary, it is not a straight line primary, and there was a lot of Re- 
publicans working for Muskie and a lot of Republicans working for 
Humphrey and McGovern and all the candidates because 

Mr. Thompson. Those were not covert operations? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo. sir. they were not planned activities. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. As you went around from campaign to 
campaign, did you have anv overall game plan as to what candidates 
you were trying to help, what candidates you were trying to hurt, or 
were you just gathering intelligence ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was simply gathering intelligence on all of them. 
I was not purposely planning to hurt or help anyone. 

^Ir. Thompson. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Stone or 
anyone else to the effect that it would be better for the President if a 
certain candidate won or if a certain candidate lost in a Democratic 
primary ? 

Mr. McMiNOAVAY. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. You mentioned several instances of things, of course, 
some that you did and some other things that you observed, the March 
27 instance that you related where the McGovern Avorkers heckled 
Mr. Muskie. you went into a little more detail in the staff interview, I 
believe, with regard to that. How effective was that, in your opinion, 
was it disruptive or what was the situation ? 


INIr. McMiNowAY. It was very disruptive, sir. What happened is it 
was a ])lamied. ]:)roplanned speech by Miiskie at UWM. 1 think his 
phinned topic of speecli was on the Vietnam war. and the protesters' — • 
tlie INIcGovern people at least — <rame plan in this particular operation 
as it was explained to me by the McGovern youth was to go to the thing; 
and holler and scream and catcall and shout — in some instances as I 
mentioned later on — especially obscenities were used but basically, just 
to shout and heckle and cause as much noise as you could to possibly 
oven-ide the audio part of the INIuskie appearance, and it was ex- 
tremely effective. As I mentioned before. ^Ir. Muskie was extremely 
vulnerable to heckling and harassment by the crowds. He did not 
handle himself well at all. 

Mr. Thompson. Was he able to finish his speech on this occasion ? 

^Ir. ]\[r]MixowAY. No, sir — he did finish his speech but it was not the 
planned finish, I mean, he did not finish his preplanned ])roo:!'am. 

Mr. TiioMPSox. Did you evei- obsei-ve in any of the headquarters that 
you worked, mailino; lists that had been obtained from other can- 
didacies or other headquarters ? 

Mr. McIMixowAY. Yes, sir. It was fairly common practice to be in 
the McGovern headquarters and find lists of staff people for Humphrey 
or vice versa. Oftentimes 

INIr. Thompson. What do you mean staff people ? 

^Ir. McjSIinoway. Well, you know, precinct workers, ward chair- 
men, and so forth, campaign workers, mailing lists. 

Mr. Ttio:mpsox. Lists of those people that you referred to ? 

Mr. Mc^NIixowAY. Right. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. How do you know that they were lists of 
the other candidates ? 

Mr. Mc]Mtnoway. Sometimes you notice in, for instance, Milwau- 
kee in the Muskie headquarters there was a list of 1968 campaign 
workers for Humphrey and precinct people they were using to call 
to solicit support for the Muskie organization. In California in Hum- 
phrey headquartei's. one time there was a list on McGovern stationerv 
of names and addresses and phone numbers that had evidently, in 
my opinion, been compiled by McGovern people and then were being 
used by Humphrey people for mailings and for direct mailing and 
for direct phone calling. 

^Ir. Thompson. Do vou know how the Humphrey people obtained 
that list ? ' 

IVfr. Mc]\f iNowAY. No. sir, I do not know. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 

Getting back to the convention, you state here in your notes rexhil)it 
No. 287] that you had complete control over who was allowed on the 
floor, that is, the penthouse floor. You get copies of Secret Service clear- 
ance, had access to all McGovern convention operation rooms, you say : 

I was in the room where Frank Mankiewicz slept and Gary Hart's room. T went 
into the Senator's room several times — 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. By invitation only, sir. 
Mr. Thompson [continues reading:] 

During the course of my security duties I met Pierre Salinger and the wife 
of Henry Kimmelman and his wife and all the big time McGovern staff. On Mon- 
day nigiit I watched television with McGovern while the California vote was 


Could you explain in a little more detail how it was that a, person 
who in tlie beginning walked in off the street could get into a situation 
where he actually watched the returns with the candidate? Did any- 
one ever check you out or ask you any questions about who you worked 
for previously, your political affiliations, your friends, references, any- 
thing like that ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. No; really, no one ever asked those specific ques- 
tions. Part of the operation iii Florida was that there were question- 
naires that were filled out, that I filled out with my own name, ad- 
dress, et cetera, that the Secret Service used for a security check. 1 
believe the extent of the check was to uncover alien forces or possible 
hostile forces, because in 1972 one of the major candidates was shot, 
and there was some concern for the physical safety of the candidate. 
And as I mentioned before, in talking during my tenure of service on 
the security staff with the Secret Service people that were there to 
guard McGovern, I found none of them philosophically alined with 
his beliefs. 

Mr. Thompson. So far as you know, you were never checked out by 
the McGovern people themselves ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was never challenged at all. 

Mr. TiioMPSOX. How much challenging would it have taken in order 
for your true situation to have been discovered ? 

iSIr. McMixowAY. Well, they could have read my name and address 
and called the Jefferson County, Ky., county clerk's office and 
checked voter registration and they would have found I was a regis- 
tered Republican and then I am sure they would have gone — as usual 
there is a procedure in some of these security check situations — con- 
tacted eitlier the local autliorities or the local newspaper and found 
out that I had previously been active in Republican politics. 

Mr. Thompson. This was not just the McGovern campaign, either. 
No one checked you out in the Humphrey campaign ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. Throughout, as I mentioned before, 
throughout the whole tenure from March until July, I was never 
challenged and I was never in the position where I had to lie about 
my true political philosophy. 

Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you in a little bit more detail about 
those girls that were at the Doral Hotel. [Laughter.] 

You mentioned one time that you carried a delegate and two girls to 
a certain place. Who instructed you, if you recall, to use the McGovern 
car for that purpose ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. It was a staff member but I cannot be specific. 
This is an instance where I recall the events but do not recall the 
specifics of the events. I know I was instructed to do it. I did not 
just voluntarily go out and get the car from the car pool and drive 
him down there but I do not remember specifically who had instructed 
me to do it. 

Mr. Thompson. On that day when was the first time you had seen 
that delegate? 

Mr. MgJSIinoway. I was on security duty on the iTth floor. He came 
to the stairwell entrance and asked to see a member of the staff. 

]Mr. Thompson. Did he ask you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes ; he asked me, I was 

Mr. Thompson. Who did he ask to see ? 


^rr. AfcMiNOWAY. Gary Hart. 

Mr. Thompson. Where was Mr. Hart ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. In his room. 

Mr. TiiOMPSox. Where was his room? 

Mr. JNIcMiNowAY. Two doors down on the light around the corner 
of the stairwelL 

Mr. TiioMPSOX. On the I7th floor ? 

Mr. MclNIiNowAY. On the 17th floor. 

iSIr. Thompson. All right. What did you do when he asked you 
t liat ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Picked up the phone and called Mr. Hart's room 
and asked him if he wanted to see this particular delegate, he said, 
"send him on back." 

Mr. Thompson. Did you send him on back? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. What happened next? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. As I mentioned, someone came out and instructed 
me to — 'by this time it was about 11 p.m., and my tenure of duty, 
assigned duty to specifically that door, my relief man had come to that 
position and I was still there and they asked me to go down and get 
the car and wait for the delegate outside, 

Mr Thompson. For that same delegate ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. Specifically for that delegate, 

Mr. Thompson. Did he call him by name ? 

Mr. McMinoway. He did at that time but I do not recall the name. 
I know where he was from. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Let us stop there just for a minute. I am 
not going to ask you that, if somebody else wants to he can. He is not 
from Tennessee, I will say that. 

Mr. McMinoway. No, sir, it is not from our State. [Laughter.] 

Mr. TiioisipsoN. Who would have been in position of authority to 
give you an order like that, to pick up a car and carry anybody any- 
where ? 

Mr. ]\IcMinoway. Almost anybody on the administrative staff. 

Mr. Thompson. On the administrative staff? 

Mr. McMinoway. Tlie ])olicy, the upper echelon level of staff. 
Decisionmaking people, the Harts, the Mankiew^czes, people of that 
caliber, Anthony Borash, for instance. 

Mr. Thompson. Well, tliere would be more than that, I assume. 
You ai'e not saying that either of these men so far as you specifically 

Ml-. McMinoway. I am not specifically singling these gentlemen 
out, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. But how many people would there be on 
the policymaking staff who would 

Ml". McMinoway. Piactically anyone who was in residence on the 
17th floor would have been in that capacity, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Was this instruction given to you by someone in 
residence on the l7th floor, to the best of your memory ? 

Mr. McMinoway. It was definitely by someone w^ho had access to 
that floor, liberal access to tliat floor. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Tf it was someone whose job it was to 
carry coffee around to people who asked you to do that, you would have 
responded to that ? 


Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. You say you were given instructions to 
get one of the cars that the McGovern people used, did you get the car ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. What did you do after you got the car 2 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Pulled to the front of the Doral Hotel. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. What happened then ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. The delegate was standing there. 

Mr. Thompson. Was he with someone ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes ; he was with two ladies, two women. 

Mr. Thompson. Did anything happen after they got into the car to 
indicate to you that they were not ladies but women? [Laughter.] 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. I am not going to go any further on that one, 
either. [Laughter.] 

W^ere all three of them in the back seat of the car ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, they were. 

Mr. Thompson. Where did you take them ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Playboy Plaza. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever hear anyone in a policymaking posi- 
tion discuss generally the utilization of women like this ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Did anyone ever state that a girl ought to be sent 
somewhere or something to that effect ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Sir, I have no further questions. Thank 

Senator Er\^n. Let me confess that I admire your dexterity and 

Now, by deceiving the supporters of Senator Muskie you infiltrated 
his organization in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Muskie, I worked in the Muskie headquarters in 

Senator Ervin. But my question was, by practicing deception as to 
your identity and purpose vou infiltrated the organization of Senator 
Muskie in Wisconsin, and did everything that you possibly could think 
of to confuse and disrupt his campaign ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I did not. With Muskie there were no 
examples of any disruptive activities on my part against Muskie's can- 

Senator Er\^n. What exactly did you do in the Muskie head- 

Mr. IVIcMixowAY. Worked as hard as I could to carry out any tasks 
which they assigned me. 

Senator ER^^N. Did you do that in good faith ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. sir, I was at this point, trying my best to be 
the best volunteer worker they had in the organization. 

Senator ER^^N. And you were getting paid indirectlv from the 
Republican Committee To Ee-Elect the President for so doing? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was getting paid by them to gather the 

Senator Ervin. By whom ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. By Mr. Rainer. 

Senator Ervin. Well, who was he getting money from ? 


Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't really know where he was getting it from. 
There has been testimony before this committee that he was getting 
it from Mr. Porter. 

Senator Ervin. Then you were doublecrossing the Republicans? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you were taking money from them 
and working to the best of your ability in behalf of the candidacy 
of Senator Muskie ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. It was merely a primary campaign, and this was 
my instructions to work in these headquarters. I was not instructed to 
disrupt the headquarters of the campaign. 

Senator Ervin. You were instructed by a Republican politician and 
paid by him to go into the Muskie headquarters and work the best you 
could for the success of the Muskie campaign, is that what you are 
telling us? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is, yes, sir ; that is what they were telling me 
to do so I would be in position to obtain the information which they 
wished me to pass back to them. 

Senator Ervin. What did you do with the information you got ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Passed it along to Mr. Rainer. 

Senator Ervin. Who was he working for ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. As I stated before, I didn't know who he was 
working for. 

Senator Ervin. So you were a double agent there ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No. 

Senator Ervin. You heard talk about double agents. You were work- 
ing in good faith for the Muskie campaign while drawing pay and 
receiving instructions and delivering information about the Muskie 
campaign to somebody that you knew was working for the Republican 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was not a double agent. I was undertaking two 
separate activities, one of gathering information and one 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY [continuing]. And one of working in the head- 

Senator Ervin. Well, you were trying to run with the fox and hunt 
with the hounds. 

Now then, you went to the Humphrey headquarters or rather you 
went to the Humphrey organizations in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and 
California — California also ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Philadelphia and California. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. Three different States, and you represented to 
them that you were a strong supporter of Senator Humphrey's 
candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and you 
would like to work for them for nothing to further that candidacy. 

Mr. MclSIiNowAY. Senator, I think you are dramatizing a little 
more than I had to. I merely presented myself as a volunteer and they 
were damned glad to get t volunteer. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. But you volunteered to work in behalf of his 
candidacy ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. And I did. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. But at the same time you were doing all you could 
to make confusion more confounded and were taking information you 


got and turning it over to the man that was actually paying you for 
infiltrating his organization. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I did not do — specifically do things to disrupt 
with that in mind. My objective was to work within an organization, 
to gain their confidence and to therefore be able to be in a position 
where I could personally observe and find out the information that I 
felt important to the organization and its structure. 

Senator Ervin. Well, are you testifying upon your oath that you 
were attempting in good faith to promote the candidacy of Senator 
Humphrey for the Democratic nomination for the Office of President. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I personally was not promoting his candidacy 
but I did in fact work for liis organization. 

Senator Ervin. How did you happen to infiltrate his organization, 
at whose instance? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Pardon ? 

Senator Ervin. At whose instance did you infiltrate the organiza- 
tions of Senator Plumphrey ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Mr. Rainer. 

Senator Ervin. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and California? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Mr. Rainer. 

Senator ERvaN. And he paid you for it? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Er\t:n. And you know that he was not supporting the 
candidacy of Senator Humphrey ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I don't believe he was. 

Senator- Ervin. And you were sneaking information out of the 
offices of the McGovem campaign to your employer? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I wasn't sneaking anything in or out. I 
physically walked in and out and I never snuck around anywhere. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you walked in and oiit^ — you walked out, you 
went in without information, and you came out with information and 
you .Tave it to your employer, didn't you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ER^^N. So you were practicing deceit on the supporters of 
Senator Humphrey. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I guess it is a matter of semantics, I don't think 
it was a matter of deceit. 

Senator Ervin. And you were actually working for your employer 
and pretending to be working in the interests of Senator Humphrey ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I did work in the interests of Senator Humphrey. 

Senator Ervin. Do you think you were working in his interests 
when you were walking out with information about his plans and 
giving it to his political of)ponents. Do you actually think that, Mr. 
McMinoway ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I don't think that it helped him for me 
to obtain the information but I think my activities during the time 
I was gaining this information helped him a great deal. 

Senator Ervtn, I want to ask you a very simple question: You, 
whether you call it sneakinq; or something else, you were actually in- 
filtrating the Humphrey organization for the purpose of acquiring 
information concerning his activities and for the purpose of giving 
that information to his political opponents, isn't that so? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. In 1972, Senator 


Senator Ervtn. Wait a minute, answer that question, you can answer 
it yes or no and then explain. 

Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. In 1972, I did not know that the people 
I worked for were Eepublicans, Democrats, atheists, Conununists, or 
what — I was merely assigned to gather political information about 
organizations and structure of campaign activities. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you were doing that merely to expand the 
intellectual horizons of your employer ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Would you repeat that question again ? 

Senator Ervhst. I was asking you whether you were infiltrating 
these organizations of these peo])le seeking the Democratic nomination 
and taking compensation from some outsiders for so doing merely for 
the purpose of expanding the intellectual horizons of these outsiders 
who were ])aying you to do these things. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe they were very interested in this in- 
formation. Wliat they did with it I am not sure. 

Senator Er\t:n. You don't have any idea what their political af- 
filiations were or what their jnirposes w^re, do you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, not at that time, I did not. 

Senator Ervin. Well, when did you discover that ? 

Mr. ^IcMixowAY. This conmiittee helped to enlighten me toward 
that afterward. 

Senator Ervix. Didn't you begin to suspect that there was some- 
body other than the well-wishers of Senators Humphrey and ]Mc- 
Govern and Muskie that you were working for ? 

Mr. M('MixowAY. The terminology used was not other than well- 
wishers. I felt that it was people who were interested in their activities 
so that they may possibly strengthen their own political 

Senator Ervix. If you thought they were honestly interested in their 
activities, why didn't you suggest to them they come down and talk 
to the people supporting the candidacies in good faith of these 


Mr. McMixowAY. Because probably they would have gotten no 
information of the type that I was able to obtain. 

Senator Ervix. Well, you had to get it by what you call intelligence. 

Mr. ^Ic^NIixowAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervix. Now, you seem to abhor the use of the Avords political 
espionage, will you explain to a simple-minded man like myself the 
exact dift'erence between political intelligence as practiced by you 
aud political espionage? 

Mr. McMixowAY. In my opinion intelligence gathering is the ob- 
taining of information, primarily structural information and factual 
information. Espionage to me is with the explicit intent of destroving 
or disrupting something or purposely trying to damage something. 

Senator Ervix. Well, were you gathering your information for the 
])urpose of assisting and promoting and elevating and furthering the 
campaigns of Senators Muskie and Humphrey and McGovern? 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. 

Senator Ervix. What were you getting it for? 

Mr. ]Mr]\riNowAY. For my employers who wished to know the struc- 
tural organization of the candidates. 

Senator Ervix. Well, did you get nothing except the structural or- 
ganization information, is that the only thing? 


Mr. McMixowAY. Basically that Avas the type of information, 
cateoorizod information I got, personnel files, types of people, sched- 
ules, and so forth. 

Senator Ervin. Were you engaged merely in getting information 
about the structural organization of the Humphrey forces in 
Philadelphia ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir. 

Senator Ervix. Allien you mixed up the cards relating to the blacks 
and those relating to union people ? 

Mr. McMiKowAY. Xo, sir. 

Senatoi- Ervix. What Mere you doing, then ? 

Mr. McMixoWAY. I was 

Senator Ervix. Why were you doing it ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. In reference to the cards? 

Senator Eraix. Yes. 

Mr. McMiNOw^VY. In reference to the cards, it was just an attempt 
on my part not to volunteer any information or any assistance that I 
felt would be helping out the situation. This Avas not my instructions 
to disrupt Humphrey's candidacy. 

Senator Ervix\ When you mixed up the cards so that the wrong 
people would get the wrong messages, what were you doing that for? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. I think you misinterpret the wording of the diary 
statement when you say — in the diary it merely says rearranging, and 
so forth. That does not mean 

Senator Ervix. You were not mixing things up, you were just 

Mr. McMix'owAY. Senator, I am not trying to be funny. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, just a minute, I don't want to in- 
terrupt your chain of thought but Ave are getting into a situation AA'here 
we are having, I think, unseemly and unAvarranted audience response, 
and I think we are getting to the place Avhere I can't understand the 
full import of the Avitness' ansAver. I seldom do this, but I Avould re- 
spectfully request Ave restore some sort of order to these proceedings. 

Senator Era'ix'^. I am going to request the audience not to demonstrate 
any reaction on their part to anything that occurs here. You are here 
as guests of the committee and as guests of the Senate, and I ask you to 
conduct yourself quietly as such. 

Now, you say you promptly put people— this is about your activities 
in Philadelphia, "I promptly put T^eonle in calling and duplicating 
cards that had been done by the day shift." 

Wliy did you do that ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. To keep them busy. 

Senator ER\^N. You Avere just acting on the assumption that an idle 
brain is a devil's Avorkshop, so you Avanted to get their brains all stirred 
up doing confusing things ? 

Mr. McMiNOAVAY. Do you Avant me to ansAver that? 

Senator Ervix. Yes, I Avould like to haA'e it ansAvered. 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir, I Avas not trying to keep the devil from 
having idle hands to Avork Avith ; no. 

Senator ERA^x. Well, you Avere trving to .<ret him to haA^e some over- 
worked hands to confuse things, Averen't you ? 

Mr. McMixoAVAY. No. The particular people Avho w^ere involved in 
this organization Avere the type of people that needed to stay busy, that 
might keep them out of some other trouble. 


Senator Ervix. Oh, yes. In other -words, you were engaged in the 
right useful act of finding what you considered honorable labor for 
otTier people to do. Is that what you are telling this committee on 
your oath ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. I am not trying to get into a philosophical moti- 
vation behind whether I told them to do it to confuse them, to keep 
them busy or saving them from the Lord. I am not an evangelist. 

Senator Ervix. I was not impressed with the fact that you were an 
evangelist but I am glad to have you corroborate my reaction in one 
respect at least. 

You say that when the McGovern forces went down to Florida that 
you went along as a secret service man ? 

Mr. McJNIixowAY. No, sir. 

Senator Ervix. What were you doing down there ? 

Mr. MrMixo-\vAY. I went along, I had worked in the Washington 
headquarter for McGovern, and practically, I would estimate that, 99 
percent of the whole stafl', volunteers and all, went to Florida. 

Senator Ervix. Well, you went along, didn't you ? 

Mr. ]M(']Mix-owAY. I didn't go with them but I went to the same place 
they were going. 

Senator Ervix. Well, did you travel from Washington to Miami ? 

INIi-. M(]MixowAY. Washington to Louisville and then to Miami. 

Senator FIrvix. Yes. Didn't you tell this committee when you got to 
Miami you worked with wdiat you called the secret service for Mc- 
Govei-n ? 

Mr. ISIcMixowAY. No, sir; I was on ^NIcGovern's personal security 
organization staff. Secret Service operatives assigned by the L^.S. Gov- 
ernment were assigned by the President of the United States to guard 
McGovern 's personal body. 

Senator Ervix. Is it the staff on which you worked that you said 
virtually all of the members of it were supporting Wallace ? 

i\Ir. ]Mc]\IixowAY. Xo, sir, not the staff I worked on. The staff of the 
Secret Service agents supplied by the Government, in their conversa- 
tions with me, had expressed the philosophy that they did not agree 
with McGovern and that they were American Party advocates. 

Senator Ervix. You said you didn't agree with Senator ]McGovern's 

]\Ir. Mc^IixoAVAY. I certainly didn't. 

Senator Ervix. Why did you ])retend to be working for his further- 
ance ? 

Mr. jNIcIMix'oway. Because that was one of the assets of my obtaining 
this infoi'ination. 

Senator Ervix. Xow, you said you have some distinctions that I find 
difficult to comprehend. You said that using force like burglary to 
obtain information or by bugging to obtain information were bad, 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir ; I believe when you break the law. 

SenatoT- Ervix'. But obtaining information by fraud is not? 

]Mr. ]McMixowAY [conferring with counsel]. My counsel would like 
you to restate the question, please. 

Senator Ervix'^. I said obtaining information by fraud is a righteous 
activity, in your opinion ? 


Mr. Mc]MixowAY. I never tried to use fraud for misrepresentation. 

Senator Ervin. You mean you didn't use any fraud at all in con- 
nection with the 1972 campaign ? 

]Mr. Mc]Mi NOWAY. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Why did you give the wrong name ? "WHiy did you 
conceal your identity ? 

Mr. McMixowAY [conferring with counsel]. That is, in my opinion, 
that wasn't fraud. I used two different names because I was working 
simultaneously in two different headquarters. 

Senator Ervix. And so you wanted to defraud two groups of peoplt 
thinking you were two different men ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Xo, sir; it was not with that purpose. The purpose 
of the dual name situation arose in Milwaukee when I started receiv- 
ing phone calls from the ]Muskie people at my hotel room, therefore, 
it was necessary to have a name for them to call me when they called 
the hotel. They couldn't just call and say you know the guy that is 
working for us, they had to have a name to call and it was a similar 
situation with the Humphrey people. 

Senator Ervix. AVell, did you tell the truth when you gave a false 

Mr. ]McMixowAY. I wasn't under oath at the time. 

Senator Ervix. Well, do you think it is all right to lie when you are 
not under oath and practice fraud and deception just when you are not 
under oath ? 

oNIr. ]McMiNO\VAY. No, sir; I don't. 

Senator Ervin. You don't think you were practicing fraud when you 
tried to deceive one of these organizations in believing you were a 
different man from ]McMinoway, did you? 

Mr. McMixoW' AY. No, sir, I don't tliink I was defraud 

Senator Ervin. You don't even think that was lying, do you? 

Mr, McMixowAY. Pardon ? 

Senator Ervix, You don't even think that was lying when you gave 
a false name? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, that was not in context of falsification of 

Senator Ervix'. You think when you gave a false name to anyone 
of these organizations to induce them to believe you were somebody 
besides MclNIinoway you were not lying to them ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. You are trying to read into my testimony 
and my statements that I purposely, with the intent of fraud used 
different names and that is not the case. 

Senator Ervin. That was not the question. 

Are you stating upon your oath that when you gave one of these 
organizations the false name to call you by and to phone you by, that 
you were not attempting to deceive them into believing you were not 
McMinoway ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir, I was not trying to deceive them. There 
was never an attempt on my part made to conceal the fact I was Mc- 
Minoway, a registered Republican voter in the State of Kentucky. 

Senator Ervix\ You were a registered Republican voter? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, at that time. 

Senator Ervin, And you voted in the election of 1972 ? 


Mr. McMixowAY. I have voted in every election since I was old 
enough, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you have always voted the Republican candi- 
date ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir, I have not. 

Senator Ervin. Whom did you vote for in 1962 for the oiRce of 
President ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. 1962? 

Senator Ervix. 1972. 

Mr. McMixowAY. I do not believe that is the Senator's right to ask 
me that. I believe that is my right to conceal that. 

Senator Ervix. You were a registered Republican ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervix. So you wanted to keep the registrar ignorant, wdiich 
3^ou have a right to do ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. In Kentucky, sir— — 

Senator Ervix. I respect the right to a secret ballot. But it is the 
first time I have ever been told in my life that a man does not prac- 
tice deception when he misrepresents his identity and misrepresents 
his political philosophy — at least, impliedly — for the purpose of in- 
filtrating and getting intelligence from people he is opposed to 

Mr. McMixowAY. Well, you have the prerogative to believe that and 
to accept the terminology in that manner, as do I have the prerogative 
to assume that — I mean, we are talking about terminology here. 

Senator Ervix. I think so. 

Mr. McMixowAY. I think that we can save a lot of time because you 
are interpreting the actions that I undertook in 1972 as deception and 
I am interpreting them as a part of my political operation of intelli- 
gence gathering. I have never. I do not think the committee has im- 
plied, nor have I admitted nor will I admit nor did I do any illegal 
activities. Now, we could sit here for the rest of the winter and talk 
about ethics and politics and we can talk about politics and religion. 
But these things are not relevant to my particular operation. My 
particular operation was intelligence gathering. The MO or the modus 
operandi that I used to gather this information can be argued from 
both sides. 

Senator Ervix. Well, I just haA^e one more question of you. You 
are sweaiing upon your oath that you believed that everything you 
did as revealed by your diar\^ was righteous conduct? 

Mr. Haddad. Senator, if I might object to that, that is a matter of 

Senator Ervix. Well, I am asking his opinion on the matter. 

Mr. Haddad. It is not a matter that might be material in this situa- 
tion as to how he might feel. I think he has exjiressed quite openly 
what his operation was and what his feeling of his operation is. 

Senator Ervix. Well, he has. 

Mr. Haddad. Obviously, you do not agree with that. 

Senator Ervix. Oh, I agree. I believe everything he has said about 
his operations except his conclusions about them. 

Mr. Haddad. I think that is a matter for each one to draw for them- 
selves, is it not ? 


Senator Ervin. Sure. 

Mr. Haddad, I believe he has amply answered, Senator, in all respect. 

Senator Erm:n. Do you object to his answering the question as to 
whether he believes that his conduct was altogether righteous ? 

Mr. Haddad. I think he has answered it and I do not think that 
whether it was righteous or not is really material. 

Senator Ervin. AVhat did he tell me about that ? I did not catch his 

Mr. Haddad. He has answered quite a number of times on what he 
felt his operation amounted to and Avhat his feelings and what his 
opinions are of w^hat it was. You disagree with him on the terms of 
whether or not it was espionage or whether it was intelligence 

Senator ER\^x. I am going to order him to answer the question. 

Mr. Haddad. In that case, I will let him answer it. 

Senator Ervix. Do you honestly think that these activities which 
you have described and which you have described in your diary were 
righteous activities? 

]Mr. ^IcMixowAY. From my interpretation, yes, sir. 

Senator Ervix. That is all. 

Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. ]Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have an idea 
that this is a good point to reiterate what I said yesterday, that we are 
now in that netherworld of trying to establish subjective considera- 
tions and values as distinguished from whether something is legal or il- 
legal. I reallv very much doubt that many would claim that political 
practice, if it is political practice, to conduct political intelligence ac- 
tivities against one's opponents or potential opponents an attractive or 
desirable thing. I am not one of those who believe that anxiihing is fair 
in love, war, and politics. But I am concerned for how this committee 
goes about an orderly examination of the political mores or the habits, 
the patterns of conduct, and activities that have grown up in the 
American political system. Your use of the word "I'ighteous" and your 
order to the witness that he answer whether his conduct was righteous 
or not disturbs me. It disturbs me because, of course, the word 
"righteous" is not used in the resolution that created this committee. I 
really do not aspire to be righteous, which has a fairly imperative tone 
to it. I do hope to be right as often as I can, but that, too, will be 

What we are mandated to inquire into is to what extent we can rec- 
ommend legislation in the Congress of the Ignited States relating to 
illegal, unethical, or undesirable conduct. And on' 3 again, I think we 
are going to have to try to establish the benchmarks by which we judge 
what is undesirable and maybe then, when we have done that and 
finished our undertaking, then we can aspire to be righteous. 

I would like to go into this just for a minute more. I do not think 
there is any doubt tlmt this witness has testified that he was in fact a 
paid agent, that he was an agent to collect information, that he may or 
may not, wittingly or unwittin.frly, have caused injury and harm to the 
candidacy of a pai'ticular candidate. I will violate the precept I estab- 
lished and the discipline I imposed on myself when T said earlier in 
these hearings that I would not comment on the relevancy or the irn- 
portance or credibility of any witness by saying I characterize this 


sort of conduct as undesirable. Now, whether it is immoral or illegal or 
unethical or whatnot, has to do rather with suggestive individual 
values and with the unfortunate pattern of conduct that may or may 
not have grown up in the American political scene. But I am going to 
do the best I can to find out what is going on, what has been going on 
for a long time. 

Yesterday, when we had our witness, he indicated that his previous 
foray into politics was campus politics. I was in campus politics, I ran 
and was elected to be president of the student body of the University 
of Tennessee, which was the only other elective post I have ever held. 
I may say that some of the shenanigans that go on in campus politics 
would really wither one's conscience. It really is blatantly bad in many 
cases. I am concerned for how that example carries forward into our 
more adult occupations. I do not propose that Senate Resolution 60 be 
amended to inquire into campus politics, but it is something that I am 
going to give some more thought to. 

But let us start from the premise, IMr. McMinoway, that you are in 
fact a paid agent. We have no disagreement on that, I take it? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. T^t us go from that to the proposition that your 
agentry took you into the campaigns of Senator's Muskie, INIcGovem, 
and Humphrey, and that your pattern of operations was essentially 
the same in all three. Is that correct ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, it was. 

Senator Baker. And I observed from your testimony these funda- 
mental things — one, that you had no trouble at all, even without lying 
about your affiliation, simply by saying nothing, in working your way 
into every extraordinarily sensitive and important position in those 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Baker. And that while you worked in those campaigns, I 
suppose for the sake of double agentry or for the sake of the agent 
relationship, you did in fact do your best to help the particular can- 
didate that you were working with at that moment? 

Mr. McMiNow^vY. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Bailer. But your primary and motivating instinct was to 
perform your original agentry, and that is to gain information to 
report to your employer, who was involved in some way in the Repub- 
lican campaign of 1972 ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. In the course of that endeavor, you did your job 
and you did in fact report from time to time. You also observ^ed other 
conduct by other than Republicans against Democratic aspirants for 
the nomination to be President of the United States. 

IVIr. ^IcMiNowAY. Yes, sir. At that time, I was in a better position 
to observe the Democrats than I was the Republicans. 

Senator Baker. Do you know whether or not there was anyone 
comparable to you who was being paid by any of the other Democratic 
candidates to work against his fellow Democrats in the campaign ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. You do know? Would you give us an example of 

Mr. McMinoway. Richard Tuck would be an example of a paid 
operative in the same capacity which I operated in, with the exception 


that I believe he has admitted to purposely partaking in political tricks 
and pranlis. 

Senator Baker. Do you know of any others ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No major characters. 

Senator Baker. All right. Let us examine some of the other exam- 
ples you have already given us. You say you know of a precinct work- 
er, campaign staff, and other information paraphernalia of a compet- 
ing candidate appearing in the headquarters of the candidate you were 
working with at that time. Did I understand you correctly ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. I am a little unclear. Are you telling us that you 
think that information, say, a Humphrey precinct list showed up, for 
instance, in Muskie headquarters by some surreptitious or immoral or 
illegal way ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. It is my opinion. This is just based on my own 
personal knowledge, that there was quite a bit of literature and in- 
formation passing from headquarters to headquarters. 

Senator Baker. Is it your opinion that it was being transferred free- 
ly and openly or that it was being transferred surreptitiously and 
secretly ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. It was definitely not transmitted openly and 
above board. 

Senator Baker. Do you know whether that was done by volunteers 
or by paid agents ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I do not really know, sir. 

Senator Baker. But you do know that the end result was that you 
observed firsthand that structural information or important political 
information of one candidate showed up in the campaign headquarters 
of another candidate ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, it did. 

Senator Baker. Let's examine another piece of your testimony. You 
indicate that on occasion, you know of episodes where the campaign 
staff of one candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination — I 
believe you identified Senator McGovern's effort — planned and exe- 
cuted demonstrations against one of his fellow Democrats, Senator 
Muskie, and that there was a discussion of some sort about the sus- 
ceptibility of Senator Muskie to demonstrations of that sort by Mc- 
Govem supporters? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, by the supporters, at least. 

Senator Baker. That is what I want to reach for. You have given u9 
that piece of information, which is useful to establish the habits, the 
patterns, the practices, the political mores of the country. But can 
you go one step further ? Can you tell me how high up in the pecking 
order, what degree of responsibility did such participants have, say, in 
the McGovem campaign ? Were they big fish or little fish ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believed some of them to be big fish in their par- 
ticular capacities. 

Senator Baker. Can you identify them or describe their assign- 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Well, the youth coordinator for the McGovern 
national committee was one of the organizers of some of the protests 
and the heckling. 

Senator Baker. Wliat was his name ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Tom Southwick. 


Senator Baker. And Mr. Soutliwick was the national director of the 
McGovern Youth Campai^? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is the way he was identified to me. 

Senator Baker. Did you see or hear him participate in plans to dem- 
onstrate against Senator Muskie? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, he conveyed these thoughts to me and he 
also was helping in the manufacturing of the posters that was men- 
tioned in my diary. 

Senator Baker. Do you know how the money was come by to make 
those posters or promote that activity against Senator Muskie? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not exactly. I mean I can't testify specifically that 
it came from staff funds. I know on the instance of the poster making 
at the McGovern headquarters, they were using office paper and glue 
and scissors — at least using the office supplies that were there at the 

Senator Baker. It was McGovern equipment, McGovern people in 
the McGovern headquarters that iDlanned, created the paraphernalia 
for, and executed a demonstration against Senator Muskie? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you consider that righteous ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I don't. 

Sefiator Baker. OK, let's stay away from that. That is my quid 
pro quo. 

Let's move on, then, to some of the other situations. You spoke of 
the campaign in California, and I am sorry I was called away from 
the room for a while and I didn't get the whole burden of your testi- 
mony in that respect. I am going to move next to the Democratic Na- 
tional Convention in Florida. You have implied some fairly important 
things, but neither Mr. Dash nor Mr. Thompson pressed you to the 
point where I could understand what you are talking about. 

Now, you were part of the McGovern security force on the I7th 
floor of his headquarters hotel at the convention of the Democratic 
National Convention in 1972. Is that correct? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. And on one occasion, the one to which you have 
testified, a delegate from a State asked to see Mr. Gary Hart. "V^Hiat was 
Mr. Hart's title? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe he was campaign manager. 

Senator Baker. To Senator McGovern ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. It is not clear in my mind exactly what his 
title was. Frank Mankiewicz and he were the two top policymaking 

Senator Baker. And the delegate did come to the I7th floor and was 
shown Mr. Hart's room ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, he was. 

Senator Baker. Were you present with the delegate when he went 
to Mr. Hart's room ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I walked with him to the door. 

Senator Baker. Did you hear the conversation between the dele- 
gate and Mr. Hart ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, I didn't. 

Senator Baker. How long was he with Mr. Hart ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Probably 10 or 15 minutes. 


Senator Baker. Was anybody else present in the room ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I didn't go into the room. 

Senator Baker. He came back out and left, is that correct ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. I know he left. I was outside and I escorted him 
from the premises. 

Senator Baker. All right. And someone in authority on the I7th 
floor of the McGovern hotel headquarters asked you to get a car from 
the car pool to meet this delegate and to take him to the Playboy 

Mr. McMixowAY. No. sir, they didn't give me the destination. It 
was common practice at the convention to provide cars for delegates 
and their family and friends. I was merely instructed to get the car 
and go downstairs and wait for the delegate. 

Senator Baker. Did they give you any other instruction ? 

Mr, McMiNOWAY. No, sir, the delegate himself gave me the desti- 

Senator Baker. And he came out of the hotel and had two people 
with him ? 

Mr. MoMiNOWAY. When I pulled out, he was standing outside — 
they have a driveway drivethrough at the hotel. 

Senator Baker. Did you know the two girls he had with him ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, one of them I had seen before in the hotel. 

Senator Baker. Were these girls known to you to be prostitutes or 
did you learn later that they were ? 

Mr, McMiNOWAY. Not prostitutes. Senator. They exhibited some, 
what I considered some immoral activities in the car between the Doral 
Hotel and the Playboy Plaza. 

Senator Baker. Can you tell this committee that there was a link 
or connection between the immoral activity of those two women and 
the delegate in the back seat of that car and his visit to Gary Hart ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not specifically. In other words, I cannot testify 
that — I don't know whether — the girls could have possibly been with 
him when he came, he could have met them coming in or going out. I 
can't say that he was supplied those two girls by the McGovern staff, 
no, sir. 

Senator Baker. So the broad outlines of what you are telling us is 
that a delegate from a State at the national convention visited Mr. 
Hart and left, that you were instructed to provide him transportation, 
that he came out of the hotel in the company of two women whom you 
decline to characterize as prostitutes but with which he engaged in 
immoral activity in the back seat of the car, and that is all you 
know about it ? 

INIr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you know of other episodes of that type? 

Mr, McMiNOWAY. Not of that specific, in that specific a degree when 
I was present. It never happened in my presence. I do know that there 
were several women throughout the hotel and there were many, many 
in Florida that I would classify as prostitutes and women that were 
making propositions to delegates, nondelegates. 

Senator Baker, Do you know of any effort by any candidate at the 
Democratic National Convention in 1972 to utilize the good offices of 
these women in connection with their delegate activities ? 

Mr, McMiNOWAY, No, sir. 


Senator Baker. My final questions are these. As I indicated at the 
beginning, it will be our ultimate responsibility to try to make rec<)m- 
melidations to the Congress, not only on the status of this "^vestigation 
with respect to the existing law, but also with respect to new and addi- 
tional laws that might be appropriate to the elective processes and t<) 
identify those things that are undesirable or immoral or unethical. 

Now, you have been through a unique experience for a young man 
and I think you have been very forthcoming and frank and candid m 
your replies. I do not believe that you should be taken to task for out- 
lining the breadth and scope of your undertaking I disapprove of 
it, which I said a moment ago. I think that maybe the principal func- 
tion of this committee will be to establish those things that ought ^ 
not to happen, even though they may happen. But can you make any , 
recommendations, do you have any ideas or suggestions that you can , 
make to this committee about where we ought to draw the line— | 
what we ought to make illegal, what we ought to identify as clearly , 
undesirable or unethical political conduct ? 

Do you have any suggestions for us, Mr. McMinoway i 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. My major suggestion to the committee and to 
politicians and the public in general would be that I personally de- 
plore the break-in type activities and the illegal type activities, but 1 
feel personally that political intelligence gathering by the means that 1 
tried to employ are a necessar}^ function at the present time ot political 
campaigns, especially on a national level. 

Senator Baker. If you assume that, I disagree with you. Can you 
recommend how we could stop that? For instance, how would you 
feel about a statute that made it illegal for the paid agent or mtormer 
of another candidate to offer himself for services or volunteer other- 
wise in the campaign of another National or Federal candidate^ 

Mr. McMinoway. If it was against the law, then I would teel it 
should not be done. 

Senator Baker. All right. If that statute were passed, would you 
have declined to undertake the job you did undertake? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you think the American political system would 
be better off had there been such a statute at the time you were 
approached and asked to do that j ob ? 

Mr. McMinoway. If it were an effective statute, sir. 

Senator Baker. Well, assume that it was an effective statute. Assume » 
that you were asked to do what you in fact did do, and that you knew, 
or it\vas brought to your attention that if you did it — that is, if you ; 
accepted pay and compensation to gain intelligence and information I 
from potential Democratic opponents, that it would be a violation of j 
Federal statute law and a felony, that is, I think, all you need to ' 
assume. You must assume that the law would be enforced. 

Mr. McMinoway. I would therefore not have undertaken the opera- 
tion, no, sir. 

Senator Baker. All right. Would the xVmerican political system i 
be better off or not, had that law l)een in place and effective at the time 5 
you were approached to take this job ? 

Mr, McMinoway. I really can't answer that. Senator, with a yes or 
no answer. In my opinion, some system of coordinated political activity, 
campaign structural activity would have to be worked out first. I don't 


think that it is possible to undertake a Democratic form of Govern- 
ment witli free election where one candidate operates totally without 
the knowledge of the other candidate. I think if the legislation would 
include some sort of negotiated revelation between the ditferent can- 
didates where the right arm would know what the left arm is doing— 
in other words, not necessarily specific actions, but I think that it is 
necessary for one candidate to know the other candidate's primary 
issues and what he plans to make campaign issues so that he is granted 
a free and equal response to these issues. 

If this type of system could be worked out where that one Senator 
would know — Senatorial candidate would know what the other Sen- 
atorial candidate plans to do strategywise, then possibly a system of 
this type would work. But as long as the mere legislation would be 
j)assed just to make it illegal, the only thing I think that type of legis- 
lation would do would create more lawbreakers, because I believe that 
it is impossible to operate a successful campaign without knowing 
what the other man is doing. 

Senator Baker. That is really a broader answer than my questions, 
but I thank you for it. But I think I can rely on your previous answer. 

You know, any penal statute has two parts. It has a deterrent quality 
and it has the punishment factor. I believe your answer already is 
that had we had such a statute in place and effective at the time you 
were offered this job, the first part of that statute, the deterrent factor, 
would have prevented you from taking this job ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir ; it w^ould have. 

Senator Baker, Tliank you very much. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. In response to the question relating to your em- 
ployer, you said that you w^eren't certain who you were working for — 
it could have been a Democrat, Republican, atheist, Communist, or 
what have you — and that you found out who your employer was as 
a result of these hearings. Is my recollection correct, sir? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I found out who the employer was definitely from 
the hearings. As I mentioned earlier, I had suspicioned that the people 
that I was working for w^ere alined with the political philosophy, 
at least, of Republicanism and my interpretation of that. 

Senator Inouye. You have listed the sums received for your effort 
as $5,800. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. $5,808.10. 

Senator Inouye. Did you list the sums received in your income tax 
return ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir ; I did list them in my income tax. 

Senator Inouye. How did you identify the source of this income? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe on my income tax form, it states "re- 
search work" or "investigative work." I am not sure of the exact termi- 
nology. But it is listed separate from my other employment income. 

Senator Inouye. You have testified in interviews with the staff 
that you met with the chief of the security division of the McGovem 
headquarters on Saturday, July 8 ? 

Mr. ]McMiNow^4Y. Yes, sir; I believe that was the initial contact 
with Mr. Barash* — is that who you are referring to ? 

•Subsequent to this hearing, an affidavit was received by Anthony H. Barash too late 
for publication in this book. It will appear in Book 12. 


Senator Inotjye. Yes; and then you were immediately hired by 
him to serve as his deputy.? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Well, I was referred to him by Mr. Tom South- 

Senator Inotjye. When did you begin your service as security 
officer ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. About 5 minutes after the initial handshake 
with Mr. Borash. 

Senator Inotjye. And you have testified that you were on duty for 
3 days as security officer? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Approximately 3 or 4 days, sir. 

Senator Inouye. So that is July 8,9, and 10 ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. And I was also there on the 11th and 12th. The 
period of time was scattered from July 8 Tmtil July 13, when I left 
Miami, Fla. 

Senator Inouye. So it was more than 3 days? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. There were several days that I was as- 
signed to a shift or I assumed a shift of posts and there were other 
days that I worked there in the hotel, not specifically on the I7th floor. 
I think the 3-day reference in the notes is to the 3 days I actually 
served at a specific assigned post, in other words, at a command post. 

Senator Inouye. "Wliat days were these ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. The Monday of the California vote, Sunday after- 
noon for awhile, on Tuesday, and I believe Wednesday afternoon that 
I specifically had those, you know, that particular post to be responsible 

Senator Inouye. In June of this year, you had an interview, at which 
time you indicated that Mr. Mankiewicz told you that he was a^\are of 
Mr. Eagleton's hospitalization ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir; I believe you have that incorrect. That 
particular statement was reported in one of the newspapers in St. 
Louis, I believe. 

Senator Inouye. That is not the truth ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Tlie actual instance of that was that I had over- 
heard a conversation about Mr. Eagleton's health — period. Not any 
reference to mental health or breakdown or anything, but just health. 
This same line of questioning was discussed about every potential Vice- 
Presidential candidate. I am assuming they wanted to make sure the 
guv was not going to drop dead. 

Senator Inouye. Then this article of Jime 24, 1973, is not correct? I 

Mr. McMinoway. No, sir ; it is not. If you are referring to the St. 
Louis Post 

Senator Inouye. Yes. 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir : that is misrepresented. 

Senator Inouye. Now, getting back to my first question, to which 
you responded you were not certain who your employers were, is it not 
a fact that you were first contacted by a friend of yours? 

Mr. McMinoway. An acquaintance, an acquaintance that I had 
known some yeare earlier. 

Senator Inouye. As a result of Republican campaigning? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. I met him while working in a Republican 
campaign, yes. 

Senator Inotjye. Weren't you told that you were hired by a group 
of conservative Republican businessmen ? 


[ Mr. McMiNowAY. I believe the terminology that I remember, sir, 
,' was concerned citizens. The indication possibly was made of biisiness- 
men, but actually, my recollection of that is not as clear as some of 
the other actual operational matters. 

Senator Inouye. I gather from your background that you are not 
politically naive. You have been president of the Young Republican 
organization in college, you took part in a gubernatorial campaign. 
You have been very active for many years. I find it rather difficult 
to understand how a young man with such political background would 
accept employment to do political espionage not knowing just who 
his employers were. 

Mr. McMixow^AY. As you have mentioned, Senator, I was politically 
active for a number of years and in a number of different campaigns. 
I had participated in local and State and National elections quite 
frequently. The interest in this particular assignment or the drawing 
factor to this particular assignment to me was the travel around the 
country and it 'was something that I had never done. It was a challenge 
and I appreciated that challenge. 

Senator Inouye. With your Republican background, you were will- 
ing to work for Democratic organizations? 

Mr. McMiNOw^AY. I have worked for Democratic organizations, 

Senator Inouye. For pay ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Pardon ? 

Senator Inouye. For pay, as in this case ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not in intelligence gathering, but I have worked 
for political organizations other than the voluntary work of the 1972 

Senator Inouye. I have several questions, but the last one for this 
round, are you aware of chapter 817 of the Florida Criminal Code? 

Mr. McMiNo\VAY. No. sir. 

Senator Inouye. I will read this to you. It is 17.02, obtaining prop- 
erty by false personation. 

Whoever falsely personates or represents another and in such assumed char- 
acter receives any property intended to be delivered to the party so personated, 
with intent to convert the same to his own use shall be punished as if he had 
been convicted of larceny. 

You received a button which very few people received during the 
Democratic Convention, a button that permitted you to full access 
of the 17th floor, sometliing that permitted you to gather valuable 
information in an area that was carefully guarded by the Secret 
Service, this little thing here. 

Do you think you violated this section of the Florida code? 

IVIr. Mc^Mtxoway. No, sir, I don't. That button was given to ]\Ii- 
chael McMinoway. It was not given to any misrepresented person. 

Senator Inouye. You actually believe that you were working for 
Mr. McGovern at that time ? 

Mr. MclMiNOWAY. That button is a designation of staff position 
with the IVIcGovern organization and while I was at the McGoyern 
Drganization and while I wore that button, I partook of the activities 
ind the obligations and the responsibilities of that position and I did 
not falsify or do anything except do a good job of that particular 


Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30. 
[Whereupon, at 12 : 35 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 : 30 p.m., the same day.] 

Afternoon Session, Wednesday, October 10, 1973 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

Before Senator Gurney starts to question the witness, I would like to 
make an announcement about the resolution the Senate has just passed 
at the request of the committee. 

As chairman of the committee I have been served with subpenas re- 
quiring me to appear in the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of New York to testifv and produce to the Senate, certain 
Senate documents in the custody of the committee on October 23. 

The committee, all members of the committee, are anxious to co- 
operate in every possible way with the enforcement of the laws, 
and at the request of all members of the committee, Senator Baker 
and I introduced a resolution whereby the Senate gave me permis- 
sion to testify in that case, and to produce any documents which are 
relevant to the issues joined in the case in which the subpena is is- 
sued. The case involves a so-called Vesco contribution. The resolu- 
tion authorizes the Select Committee to attempt to determine some- 
thing not revealed by the subpenas ; namely, whether the information 
sought is relevant to the issues joined in the case in which the sub- 
penas have been issued, and the resolution adopted by the Senate 
authorizes the committee txi undertake to ascertain that question, set- 
tle that question, by consultation with the attorneys in the case or by 
ap):)ropriate motions before the U.S. District Court itself. 

The committee is anxious to cooperate in every way wdth the produc- 
tion of any evidence in its possession which may be relevant to the con- 
troversy involved in that case, and I thought it would be proper to 
make this announcement. 

Senator Gurney. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McMinoway, turning to your diary, on the entry on March 25, 
you touched on this planned disruption of Muskie's television inter- 
view. Would you explain in detail exactly what happened ? 

Mr. McMiNow^\Y. Yes, sir. 

As is noted in the diary I personally observed the production of 
signs and placards and w^hat have you, that were intended for use in a 
demonstration that was to be held at the TV station in Milwaukee 

Senator Gurney. Were these signs manufactured, produced in the 
McGovern headquarters? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes ; they were. 

Senator Gurney. What did they say, what kind of signs were they ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Well, the one that is noted in the diary form is 
tabbed exhibit 2 [exhibit No. 231], is the quotation "America needs a 
leader, not a crybaby,'' and this was, I felt, a derogatory cut at Senator 
Muskie's emotional outbreak over in New Hampshire. 

Senator Gi-rney Plow many of these signs were there, do you recall ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Not specifically, Senator, but there were a num- 
ber of signs being made. 


Senator Gurney. Were there other signs in addition to this partic- 
ular cry baby one ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Oh, yes. Each sign carried a different slogan. 

Senator Gurney. Do you recall some of the other slogans? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir, not specifically. 

Senator Gurney. Can you give an approximate idea of how many 
numbers of signs there were? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY, There were approximately 8 to 10 people 
working on the signs. Each individual was making, in passing — in my 
passing through, they were all working on different signs. 

Senator Gurney. Each one was making several signs? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Eight. 

Senator Gurney. Go on now. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. As the plan was explained to me by Mr. South- 
wick, what they had planned to do was to use those signs on Sunday 
morning over at the radio and TV station headquarters to just protest 
up and down and hopefully upset Senator Muskie's composure before 
he went in for the "Meet the Press" conference. I supplied this commit- 
tee staff a copy of the transcript that I obtained from the press of this 
particular TV interview and it may be noted in this particular tran- 
script it shows an agitation and a less than composed attitude taken 
by Senator Muskie during this particular TV appearance. 

Senator Gurney. In fact, I recall that television appearance, and 
my recollection is similar to yours. He did seem somewhat upset, and 
it is your thought that one of the reasons why he was, was because of 
the demonstrations outside ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I found this to be at least my personal 
observation, that during harassment or heckling by the crowds Muskie 
did become quite upset and shaken. 

Senator Gurney, Were there quite a few demonstrators outside? 
Could you give an approximate idea of how many ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Unfortunately that particular morning I over- 
slept and I did not go to the TV station myself. It Avas normally my 
practice not to be in the vicinity of such, even though I knew about 
such things, I tried purposely not to go around those. 

Senator Gurney. Would you characterize this as a dirty trick by 
McGovern people on Senator Muskie ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. I noted also in your diary on the witness sheet 
that you obtained a Muskie schedule and gave it to the Humphrey 
people in Wisconsin, is that correct ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Who did you give it to in the Humphrey head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. The press, the man who was handling the advance 
press schedule of Humphrey. 

Senator Gurney. One of Humphrey's key people? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. It was — tlie name I can't recall right off the 
top of my head Init the gentleman's function was to help in scheduling 
press appearances and scheduling for the Senator. 

Senator Gurney. Did you tell him how you obtained the schedule ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No,' sir. In most instances, the passing of the 
schedules from one headquarters to another was handled anonymously. 

Senator Gurney. But you gave it to him ? 


Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not personally, sir. I verbally gave it to him but I 
did not physically hand him the documents, t^sually these things were 
handled over the telephone. I would call and ask for the press secretary 
for the advance man of that particular city and in just a matter of fact 
conversation give them what I j)urported to be the schedule. 

Senator Gurney. Did he know^ who you were ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Anyway, he knew he was getting information 
from someone out of the Muskie headquarters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Did he object to getting this information? 

Mr. McMixow^AY. No, sir. They were very thankful. 

Senator Gurney. So to paraphrase it, he was very grateful that 
somebody was gathering political intelligence on Humphrey for 
Muskie — is that a fair way to put it ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I believe they were quite walling to re- 
ceive the information. 

Senator Gurney. Then I noted on page 6 of the witness summary 
that you did the same thing in reverse. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. What day, Senator ? 

Senator Gurney. Well, let me see where that is. If I can find it here 
or perhaps I had better ask you the question : Did you do that in re- 
verse, get Humphrey's schedule for the Muskie people ? 

Mr. McMiNOw^\Y. Yes, sir. After I initially gave the infonnation 
to my contact, oftentimes I would pass it along to the other people. 

Senator Gurney. Well, was there any objection on the part of the 
Muskie people to getting the Humphrey schedule ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, there wasn't. The same attitude persisted 
in each and every organization that I encountered. 

Senator Gurney. What you are saying is any political intelligence 
that you were able to generate for either Muskie or Humphrey in Wis- 
consin was very gladly received by both camps — is that right ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And they had no objection to political intelligence 
gathering on the other fellow ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir ; they didn't. 

Senator Gurney. Or if we can put it a little more boldly, you may be 
offended by this term, but they had no objection to political spying, 
either ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, they didn't. 

Senator Gltrney. So it works for Democrats as well as Republicans? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Very often. 

Senator Gurney. It is a pox on both your houses. It certainly was | 
in the 1972 campaign. I mean it was going on, to your knowledge, in j 
the candidates' camps on the Democrat side ? j 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Very definitely. 

Senator Gurney. Let's go to the University of Wisconsin speech 
that Muskie made that you referred to, and yoii talked about it before, 
but again I would like to find out more in detail what happened. 

Can you give a more voluminous description of this particular 
heckling ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 



I Senator Miiskie had planned, and it was announced public — an 

i announcement had been made that he was speaking to the Univei-sity 

■ of Wisconsin to the student body. It was not really a large crowd there 

i but it was an enthusiastic crowd, and at this particular instance I 

was there because I went out with the Muskie people to the university. 

I noticed a lot of heckling, a lot of catcalling and this type of — you 

know, boisterous type demonstration. There were a few signs but I 

did notice that some of the catcalling and some of the heckling was 

coming from people that I recognized from the McGovern youth 


Senator Gurxey. So in this instance, again of your own personal 
knowledge, you know that at least some of the heckling and disruption 
was done by McGovern people because you had seen them in the Mc- 
Govern headquarters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. Can you give — were there obscenities used by these 
hecklers ? 

Mr. INIcMixowAY. Not to a large extent in "Wisconsin, but as we 
progressed through the campaign to California, the attacks became, 
as the field of candidates narrowed down, the attacks became more 
personal and more obscene, in some cases. 

Senator Gurxey. Well, what kind of heckling occurred at this 
Wisconsin rally ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Catcalling, whistling, screaming, hollering, 
chanted clapping and singing. Any kind of boisterous noise that would 
(lis?-upt communications over the PA system and make hearing the 
Senator very, very difficult. 

Senator Gurxey. Was Senator Muskie able to complete his speech ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. He did complete speaking there but I 
am — at the time I was advised of what he was planning on talking 
about but he didn't cover completely the topics and the area that he 
had originally planned to cover. 

Senator Gurxey. In other words, the heckling was so serious or so 

boisterous or it annoyed him so much that he cut short his speech and 

1 did not cover the points that he intended to ; is that a fair thing to say ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. In my opinion, he did cut the speech and he was 
obviously very, very upset. 

Senator Gurxey. Would you characterize this, at least insofar as the 
l)eople you identified as McGovern peoj^le, as being a dirty trick played 
by the McGovern people on Senator Muskie ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. I feel that everyone has a right to their own 
[[Opinion, but to express your opinion at the expense of someone else, it 
is flefinitely not desirable, to say the least. 

Senator Gurxey. Let us go to the Humphrey fundraising dinner 
that you talked about that occurred at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in 
California. I understand that there, too, there Avas picketing and 
harassment. Could you describe that in more detail ? 

Mr, McMixowAY. Yes, sir. This was one of the extravaganzas of the 
California campaign from the aspect of one of Senator Humphreys 
fundraising drives. I believe it was a $100-a-plate sitdown dinner 
where the Senator was to speak. It was rather a formal affair. The drive 
centered upon getting large contributors there and a lot of personalities 

4526 ; 

and known faces. The McGovern youth people who worked in the 
Santa Monica area — who I was familiar with at least from the stand- 
point of recognition sightwise and from knowing around headquar- 
ters — had gotten together a group of people primarily from around a 
college campus area, UCLA, and so forth. They proceeded over to 
the Beverly Hilton Hotel approximately an hour and a half before 
the scheduled start of this dinner. 

In many instances, the ISIcGovern people would caravan to a rally 
or to a demonstration in as few number of vehicles as they could ; you 
know, all of them would pile in one car, maybe 8 or 10 people, 
and drive, to save expenses and so forth. But I remember specifically 
on this evening, they took as many different cars as they could so as 
to take up as many parking spaces close to the hotel, really to neces- 
sitate the guests at the banquet having to walk at least some dis- 
tance, where they would have a chance to observe the signs and the 

Senator Gitrney. What kind of signs were they carrying ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. The same type, sir, anti-Humphrey, anti — espe- 
cially they were not pro-McGovern signs, but they were not pro- 
Humphrey signs. They were some of the concern-type signs, some of 
the statements— statements taken out of context and used from the 
standpoint, for embarrassment to Senator Humphrey. 

Senator Gurnet. Do you recall how many were engaged in this 
heckling ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. I recognized several faces. There were several 
people. I would say there were upward of 30 people involved in the 
total demonstration ; but I did recognize, myself, at least 4 or 5, 
probably, people that I knew that were actively working in the Mc- 
Govern campaign. 

Senator Gurnet. What about verbal harassment? Did they use 

Mr. McMiNowAT. As I mentioned earlier, the verbal attack and 
heckling had become more personal and there was a lot of — not hol- 
lering and screaming, because there were policemen in the vicinity 
and eventually, in my opinion, that is what finally broke up the dem- 
onstration, not police intervention, but the fact that the police were 
there and there was no desire for confrontation with the law authori- 

Senator Gurnet. You mentioned, too, the Humphrey press confer- 
ence. As I understand it, he was going to a nursing home and he would 
be followed by cameras that would film this, indicating his concern 
about people, elderly people who had to spend their time in nursing 
homes. Was that the idea? 

Mr. McMiNowAT. As I interpreted it. Senator, the idea was to 
make an appearance and thereby gain some free publicity. The peo- 
ple that accompanied the Senator on many occasions, each candidate 
had a corps of pressmen favorable to or at least seemingly in the 
favor of the candidate and they would grant the candidates a little 
extra special treatment and sometimes report the news from that per- 

Senator Gurnet. Now, describe that harassment that occurred on 
this occasion. 


\ Mr. McMixowAY. Well, just as the Senator was entering — it was a 
'1 suburban nursing home in Los Angeles. Again, I w^as not present for 
; the tour. I did drive in one of the cars over to the nursing home area 
and I observed, just as the Senator and all the cameramen were pre- 
paring to enter the home, a little spontaneous-type demonstration 
started. All of a sudden, from nowhere, there came several protesters 
carrying signs and heckling. That is when they started the "Hubert 
really doesn't care" type chant, you know, and the put-on type. 

Senator GtTiNEY. Did they go into the nursing home ? 

Mr. INIcMiNOWAY. No, the demonstrators did not. 

Senator Gurney. You mentioned this business of the women in 
Miami, and I do not particularly want to go into that in detail, but 
there are one or two things I did want to ask you about it. You 
mentioned one of the delegates got in the car that you were driving 
to go from the Doral Hotel to the Playboy Plaza Hotel, that he was 
joined b}^ two women, and I think I recall you saying that you 
recognized one of them. Is that correct ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I recognized her to the point that I had seen her in 
the hotel previous to this occasion. 

Senator Gurxey. INIy question is, wdiere did you see her in the hotel, 
do you recall ? 

Mr. ISIcMiNowAY. As the hotel is laid out, when you come into the 

I front entrance of the Doral, you come directly into the lobby. There is 

a large reception-type room to the right and the stairs go up to 

the mezzanine floor. The mezzanine floor was the gathering point for 

delegates, their wives, friends, curious spectators. It w^as probably 

I the most frequent access area to the hotel. 

Senator Gurxey. And you had seen her there before ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. Well, what was her job there? What was she 
supposed to be doing ? What did you think her mission was ? 

Mr. McMixowAY [conferring w^ith counsel]. 

Senator Talmadge [presiding]. Senator Gurney, have you con- 
cluded your interrogation ? 

Senator Gurx-^ey. No, the witness is conferring with coimsel on the 
answer to my question. 

Mr. McMixoway. Prior to that occasion, I had noticed her in the 
' hotel once or twice when I was eating lunch and several times in the 
<- mezzanine area. I did not draw any conclusions as to what her specific 
1 mission there was. 

Senator Gurx-^ey. You mentioned the hospitality room in the Doral 
Hotel. Could you explain that more fully? What was the layout? ^Yho 
was there ? "W^iat were they doing? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. Senator, it has been my experience not only at 
political conventions but social and business and other conventions, 
that there is always a special place in what we call the hospitality 
room, which consists of a room where peo]:)le get together and congre- 
gate, talk, they drink, sometimes they are singing and dancing. Ba- 
sically, the one in the Doral Hotel was used as a meeting place where 
delegates could get together and socialize with other delegates, politi- 
cal figures could get together and socialize with other politicians, and 
so forth. 


Senator Gurney. Well, I think you have mentioned, and correct ; 
me if I don't state your contention correctly, that in this hospitality i. 
room there were always, or usually, women that I think you charac- 
terized as of low moral character. Is that correct ? \ 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. ^ 

Senator Gurney. Well, how many were there ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. The number fluctuated, Senator, as did the number 
of people in the room. Sometimes there would not be any people there ; 
other times, the room would be crowded. 

Senator Gurney. Were these girls the ones that you saw there 
regularly ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I traveled quite extensively between the 
Doral Hotel and the Fontainebleu Hotel. In each different hotel, there 
would be a certain crowd that would hang out in that particular hotel. 
You could almost stereotype the diiferent type crowds that were at the 
Doral, that were at the Fontainebleu, at the Playboy Plaza, and so 

Senator Gurney. Well, what was the common knowledge as to why 
these girls were there — to serve coffee or cokes, or what? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I thought they were prostitutes. 

Senator Gurney. And that was the general understanding in the 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I can't speak for anyone else. In my opinion, the 
girls were prostitutes. 

Senator Gurney. The reason why I am interested in this is not to 
drive this particular point into the ground, but a great deal was made 
earlier in these hearings about the Liddy plan, when first presented to 
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder and Mr. Dean. The Liddy pla« con- 
tained a proposal to use call girls at the Democratic Convention to 
subvert the Democrats. It occurs to me, though that particular part of 
the plan was canceled, not used, that apparently, at least at the McGov- 
ern headquarters, at least in your understanding, the Democrats were 
doing it. I think it is pertinent to the inquiry. 

There has been some indication in the investigations that we have 
conducted here that McGovern headquarters in California were used 
by people to organize a heckling of one of President Nixon's appear- 
ances in California. Do you have any knowledge of that ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not of that particular instance. At the time I 
was operating with the McGovern and Humphrey people in California, 
the basic concern there was the Democratic Presidential primaries and 
not the general election in November. 

Senator Gurney. Did you ever participate in any of this heckling 
or demonstrating or radical disruption that you have testified to here ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I didn't. 

Senator Gurney. Do you have any opinion as to whether this par- 
ticular activity was more disruptive to the political system of our 
country than your intelligence gathering? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I personally feel that, as I mentioned earlier, 
when you deprive someone of their right to speak, either by heckling 
them dowm or demonstrating and preventing them from even mak- 
ing the appearance, you are violating their rights. But I also believe 


that you have a right to express your opinion and everyone should 
be given equal opportunity to express that opinion. 

Senator Gurney. Just one final question, because my time is up. 
"Wlien you were performing the security duties in the McGovern head- 
quarters in Miami, did you at any time prevent anybody from seeing 
Senator McGovern ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. If you mean without authority from the Senator 
to do that, no, sir. I never obstructed his visitation. 

Senator Gurney. I mean on your own ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Talmadge [presiding]. The Chair yields at this time to 
Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Senator Talmadge. 

Mr. McMinoway, apparently from what you have related to this 
committee, you had quite a bit of training for the job that you were 
doing. Now, where did you receive this training ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. If you are talking about political experience or 
intelligence gathering? 

Senator Montoya. Both. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Political experience I learned foot in hand, by 
starting when I was 8 years old, working at all different types of tasks 
and gradually grasping a larger and larger knowledge of the political 
operations of the American democratic system as I got older. 

Senator Montoya. How old are you now ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I am 27 years old. 

Senator Montoya. Where did you learn to infiltrate and gather 
intelligence in the manner that you did ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. By reading and talking with people who knew 
Bobby Kennedy. 

Senator Montoya. And did you have any conferences with anybody 
before you started out on your job ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. In relation to how to do this? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. "^^Hiat transDired during your meetinir with 
Mr. Rainer when you were hired? Were there any specific instruc- 
tions given to you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. The instructions were that I was to 
travel through the Democratic primary States gathering information 
pertaining to personnel and organizational structure of the Demo- 
cratic candidates individual campaio-n organizations. 

Senator Montoya. Did you ask him for any credentials as to what 
he represented ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. The question of credentials never came 
up at the meeting. 

Senator Montoya. Was it not unusua^. in view of your political 
experience, that a man went to Lon'sville, Kv.. and asked you to 
gather information on primary Presidential candidates and did not 
represent himself to be affiliated with any political party or any 
political organization ? 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 11 


Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. I have personal knowledfro of this type 
of activity taking place at least statewide in my own State for non- 
political motivation. 

Senator Montoya. Oh, like, for instance, what ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. INIany times newspaper reporters will volunteer 
and work in individual campaigns as volunteers to obtain information 
of the making of the President-type stories, so that later on, after 
the election, they can compile information on the particular campaign 
structures and organizations. 

Senator Montoya. Do you mean to tell me that newspaper re- 
porters infiltrate, too? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. I know of one instance personally where news- 
paper people possibly — you might not say infiltrate, but they worked 
within a campaign. I think this is a fairly widespread practice of 
newspaper people and ]:)ress people following campaigns, not just to 
report the news, but for writings and documents that they plan to 
publish after the elections. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you didn't buy Mr. Stone's story or Bhick- 
well's that they were interested in behalf of some conservative business 
people. You didn't buy that, did you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. If you mean did I question that, I questioned 
it only in the sense of what type of people they were and what ty]x^ 
of activities would transpire if I did take the job. I didn't question 
each individual's character or ask him anything about the individuals 

Senator Montoya. Well, you stated in your testimony to the staflf 
that Mr. Jason Rainer contacted you and that he explained that he 
represented some conservative businessman and that he would ask. 
that he was asking you to go to different States during the primaries 
and find out about the personnel. 

NoAv, you didn't buy that, did you ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I had no reason to doubt it. Senator. 

Senator Montoya. When did it dawn upon you that you were on 
a political mission for the Republican Party ? 

Mr, McMiNOWAY. I had suspected it as early as June of 1972. 

Senator Montoya. And who did you think you were gathering in- 
formation for, such as you gathei'ed. and who did you think you were 
performing these tasks for ? You didn't think that you were doing these 
things in behalf of these so-called conservative businessmen, did you? 

Mr, McMiN0w^\Y. Senator, at the time, I had no desire to even know 
who the people were as long as I, myself, felt that the activities were 
legal and wei-e not destructive to the American system. T felt that I 
was working within the system in a normal political function in carry- 
ing out my operation at the time. 

Now, I can see where possibly, there would be some question as to 
why someone wouldn't challenge that thing. But in 1972, myself nor 
the American people had any reason to suspect these types of activities. 

Senator Montoya. Did you consider them unethical? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya, Do you today? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did you consider them improper? 


Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. 
Senator Montoya. Do you today ? 
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you mentioned in your diary on page 5, 
tab 5 [exhibit No. 234] : 

I infiltrated Humphrey's headquarters by complimenting the elderly oflBce man- 
ager, Gertrude Adcovitz, into believing that I was a dedicated Humphrey sup- 

Now, is that a proper thing to do, to try to compliment a person 
by deceit ? 

]Mr. ]\lcMixowAY. I wasn't trying to deceive the lady. She was a very 
nice lady. 

Senator Montoya. You weren't a dedicated Humphrey supporter, 
were you? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was working in that capacity. 

Senator Montoya. But you were not a dedicated Humphrey sup- 
porter, were you? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is again a question of terminology. Mrs. Ad- 
covitz herself stated in the press that I did everything she asked and 
everything they thought I could do to help them. 

Senator Montoya. Do you consider yourself a dedicated Humphrey 
supporter ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No ; I am not a dedicated Humphrey supporter. 

Senator Montoya. Then you were deceiving her ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No. 

Senator Montoya. I think it is patently clear that you were. 

Now, on April 22, you called people and urged support for Jack- 
son, This was in Pennsylvania. iSow, if you were in fact working for 
Senator Humphrey doing your work at the Humphrey headquarters 
as you have indicated, and you have indicated that you were a dedi- 
cated Humphrey supporter, why were you calling people and urging 
them to support Senator Jackson ? 

Mr. McMinoway. The specific instructions for that evening's com- 
munique were that they took all the people that were there in the 
headquarters and they put them on the phones calling people as a 
desperate, last-minute effort to try to swing some more support to 
Humphrey. My only instructions were to get on the telephone and 
call people and urge them to get out to vote. I wasn't specifically 
instructed to solicit votes for Humphrey or anything. 

At this particular time, in looking back and thinking back on it, 
that particular evening, I might have — Jackson might have said some- 
thing I liked and I just called for him. 

Senator Montoya. Well, did he I 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Did I like him ? 

Senator Montoya. Did he do something that turned you over? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. He didn't convert me to Jacksonism, if that is 
what you are asking. 

Senator Montoya. Well, what happened? What triggered your 
sudden change of loyalty as a dedicated Humphrey supporter to 
Senator Jackson ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe I testified to your earlier question that 
I was not a dedicated Humphrey supporter. You were assuming 

4532 I 

Senator Montoya. Were you a Humphrey supporter ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, not in 1972. | 

Senator Montoya. Why did you tell the office manager that you j 

were a dedicated Humphrey supporter 'I j 

]\Ir. M(^MiNowAY. I merely told her I wanted to volunteer to work. ; 

She assumed- ■ 1 

Senator Montoya. These are your words. I 

Mr. ISIcMiNOWAY. But the conclusions you are drawinji^ here — I I 

merely stated that she was convinced I was. I didn't say I had to do | 

anvthing to convince her of that other than work in the campaijjn. ] 

Senator Montoya. Let's go to tab 8 [exhibit No. 2:^7] . where you j 

state in your summary, "I saw INIcGovern's youth coordinator' — | 
this was at the Democratic National Convention — 

Tom Southwiek and he mentioned to me that McGovern was orj?anizing his 
own security staff. This was the highlight of the past four months. I ohtained 
the name of* McGovern's top security man from Tom. I went to the Doral Hotel 
headquarters and asked for Tony Borash, head security man. I introduced 
myself and told Tony that Tom had sent me over for security reasons to assist 
him in the office security. 

Now, did Mr. Southwiek actually send you over to assist Mr. 
Borash, or did you misrepresent yourself to Mr. Borash as having 
been sent by Mr. Southwiek to assist him ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Mr. Southwiek made the suggestion — this was 
the first time I knew about the security staff, and jNIr. Southwiek in 
addition to this, as I understand it now, later even called Mr. Borash 
and told him that I would be an excellent choice for this security 
position. I did not go over and ask for the security job. 

Senator IMontoya. Now, on tab 8 [exhibit No. 237] , again you stated : 

It is amazing liow easy it would Ije to he right in the midst of all the operations 
and planning and yet be an enemy. Now. the woi-k I did while in Miami is 
probably the best I did while I was on this assignment. The characters I had 
played in the last four months are as varied as the locations T was in. Maybe 
some day soon I will take the time to write about all the people I mpt and the 
things they wittingly helped me to obtain information that hurt their individual 

No-w, do vou think that this was ethical and proper? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I believe my activities at that time were 
ethical. If you would like for me to explain that statement, I would 
be glad to do it. 

Senator Montoya. Well, go ahead and please explain how playing 
different varied roles for different candidates and dividing loyalties 
among different candidates is proper and ethical. 

Mr. McMinoway. To start, with, Senator, the playing of different 
roles refers to not of deceit or deception but that the different organi- 
zation staff members were stereotyped so that in the McGoveni organi- 
zation most volunteer workers were young, hippie-type, protesting-type 
of students. In the Humphrey camp the volunteer workers were more 
of t^^e college intellectual, social fraternity-type group, and this is 
Avhat is meant and implied in this particular phrase where it talks 
about playing different characters and different roles, because it was 
necessary when I was with Humphrey to be a little more polite, a little 
more discrete, and a little bit more well-mannered. 

A^Hien you were in the McGovern headquarters, you could do any- 
thing you pleased and fit right in. 


Senator Montoya. You were set on hurting their causes, were you 

Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. By hurtinof the cause, if you would refer 
back to the complete context of the diary, the complete assignment 
and all, by hurting their cause, it was not — this statement does not 
say there was motivation to go out and hurt their cause, bvit what, 
in fact, happened was by me obtaining this information, this sum- 
mary was written this summer, 1973, after the fact, and in fact, from 
the revelations of the committee after I had learned where the infor- 
mation I obtained was going, I believe politically it hurt their cause, 
but not from the standpoint of deception or any kind of espionage or 
any of those activities. 

Senator Montoya. That is very unusual rationalization, I might say. 

My time is up. Thank you. 

Senator Talmadge. Senator Weicker. 

Senator "Weicker. Mr. McMinoway, I just have a few very brief 
questions. Why do you think you were not challenged when you made 
application to work for these various campaigns? In the discussion 
with the minority counsel earlier today, specifically, I believe it was 
when you attached yourself to the jNIcGovern campaign, the question 
was asked as to what it would take to check you out and you indi- 
cated a phone call and back to your hometown, et cetera, why do you 
think that this did not happen ? 

Mr. McMinoway. Well, if you take each individual case, the posi- 
tion that I was placed in or that I placed myself in with the different 
organizations, for instance, in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, most of 
the youth volunteers, as was the case in California, went to the Mc- 
Govern headquarters. Humphrey was very, very desperate for volun- 
teer workers, and I believe that, as I stated earlier, they were just 
simply appreciative of the fact that I was willing to come over there 
and stuff envelopes and mail this out and take charge of a group of 
people that were not carrying out their job successfully. 

Senator Weicker. Well, do you think it might be that here in this 
country, whether your campaign happens to be a Humphrey cam- 
paign or a McGovern campaign or a Xixon campaign or whatever, that 
the basic assumption is that those who volunteer are not spies? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I believe that is a general concept in the 

Senator Weicker. In other words, apparently the basic assumption 
is somewhat at odd to your own personal opinion, and I might add the 
personal opinion of othere who have appeared before you that these 
things go on all the time, because if they had been going on all the 
time, they would be checked out. 

Mr. McMinoway. I believe that is correct. 

Senator Weicker. But, of course, if, all of a sudden now. it is thrown 
out on the table to this committee and also to the American people that 
it goes on all the time, then we are going to start checking each other 
out pretty closely, I would say. 

Mr. McMinoway. I would hope so. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I would hope that we never get to that 
point where in our political campaigns and in our dealings with each 
other as fellow citizens that we have to check each other out. 


Now, a<^ain, in earlier testimony before this committee, you indi- 
cated, I think it was in response to Senator Baker's question as to, 
you know, what should be done, has it ever oecui'i'ed to you tliat the 
public record is a perfectly ade(|uate i)la('e to check candidates out as 
to their views on various issues, as to their past history, as to what they 
propose for the future. Do you not think that is quite adequate, the 
public record? What, in addition to the public record, should be 
known by the voters ? 

Mr. McMiNOWAY. Oftentimes, Senator, the public record is not an 
accurate, unbiased report on the actual events, I know myself, 1 have 
been victim to public press in the sense tliat when my name was first 
mentioned, many of the stories and especially the rumors, leaks or what- 
ever you want to call them that were circulatinfj throuo^hout the press, 
have been proven by testimony before this committee and before other 
leo;al authorities that they were inaccurate. In my opinion, it is neces- 
sary that these things be checked out. 

Senator Weicker. "Well, do you not think that a free press guarantees 
the fact that the facts ai-e going to be checked out and that innocent 
men are not going to be condemned out of hand by the American 
people ? 

]\Ir. jNIclNIixowAY. Senator, I do not mean to imply that • 

Senator Weicker. Are you not having your opportunity now to 
express exactly your thoughts and what you did and what you did 
not do before the people of this country ? 

Mr. MclNIixowAY. That is what I am doing. Senator, but I did not 
mean to imply 

Senator Weicker That is right. 

Mr. McMixowAY [continuing]. By my earlier remark that free- 
dom of the press should be restricted or anything or curtailed in any 
manner. I was just merely stating that all the time, all the public 
records are not always correct, and you need to check into it a little 
further than just reading how a Senator voted on the floor of the 
Senate on a particular bill. Sometimes there is motivation and rea- 
soning behind that. That is more important than the actual vote it- 

Senator Weicker. Do you think the Congressional Record is a 
philosopjiically-inspired document — one way or the other ? 

Mr. McMixowAY. Xo, sir. But I do not believe the American pub- 
lic has the time or the interest, which is the pity of the whole thing, 
to read the Congressionl Record. 

Senator Weicker. Do you think that a man's voting record, political 
record, are adequately available to the American people regardless of 
the interpretation — but the actual votes themselves? 

Mr. INIcMixowAY. I think it takes 

Senatoi- Weicker. I would like to know exactly what it is that is 
outside the i>ublic record that should be known as to various candi- 
dates. You tell me. 

Mr. ]\IcMixowAY. I think the impoi-tant thing is the motivation. 
As I mentioned earlier, I know of cases where actions are taken. I 
sometimes have been a victiin of circumstances Avhere I had to do cer- 
tain things that T would not really like to do. and I am sure certain 
Senators and Congressmen vote on appropriations or on bills not 
because the yes or no vote is the total aspect. I think it would be 


a shame for this country if people voted simply yes or no or an- 
swered questions simply yes or no. 

Senator Weicker. Do you think that candidates for President of 
the United States answer a yes or no during the course of a poli- 
tical campaign ? 

INIr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. I am not implying that. 

Senator Weicker. Do you think they probably get subjected to the 
most searing questions, and, I might add, in the most philosophical 
sense from the left, the right, and the center. Do you think this 
occurs during the course of a campaign ? 

Mr. ISIcMiNowAY. Yes, sir, but I don't feel that it is adequate. I 
don't think that press conference answers to questions are adequate 
for the people. 

Senator Weicker. Well, of course, a press conference doesn't con- 
sist of the entire questioning during the course of a campaign, does 
it? The candidates are subjected to questions from citizens, are they 

]Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir; I think that is what one aspect that 
television has played a vital role in American politics in the last 10 
years because the candidates can't say something in New York and 
then take an opposite view in California. 

Senator Weicker. I suppose you have told me differently so you 
and I are going to get into a dispute — but I find it difficult to believe, 
because I think you have been very forthcoming with the committee 
and I don't intend to get into a philosophical debate with you, but what 
T can't allow to pass is the fact that apparently spying and the gather- 
ing of political intelligence during the course of a campaign is some- 
thing that you feel — you thought^ — not only thought was correct dur- 
ing the course of this campaign, but is a proper course of action for 
further campaigns, is that correct? 

INIr, McMiNOw^A.!'. As the American political system stands now, I 
believe it is a necessary function. I think Senator Baker 

Senator Weicker. But the way that system stands now. that system 
didn't check you out. That system obviously w^as based on the assump- 
tion you were not a spy just like the system of this country operates on 
the basis that a man is innocent until proven guilty, and now what 
you are advocating to this committee and to all of us is, that yes, we 
had best check each other out and we had best determine whether a man 
is innocent. It would be a rather difficult country to live in, don't you 

Mr. INIcjMinoway. I think you are reading into the statemient when 
I said : Yes; I believe that people should be checked out. I did not say 
that that was the best system. I said as it stands now, if I were a candi- 
date for public office and I had staff volunteere, before I would put 
them in charge of my security, I would check them out. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I think quite frankly it is a far easier and 
less involved process to get rid of the type of activities which you are 
talking about than to enter into a mass scale checking out of each 
other in the course of our activities, because what you did obviously 
was the aberration, not the rule ; otlierwise when you went into Mr. 
INIcGovern's headquarters and the other candidates' headquarters they 
would check you out from top to bottom. But their style happens to 


be, I think, probably that certain idealism in the truth of candidates 
and their workere alike, that those who came to volunteer their servdces, 
do because of their belief in the man and what he stands for and not 
because they want to go ahead and gather political intelligence. I have 
no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Eiaix [presiding]. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. McMinoway, 1 think both the staff and the 
Senators have explored your activity in detail so I will attempt to be 
extremely brief. Had you had previous experience in infiltrating any 
campaigns prior to the Presidential election of 1972 ? 

Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. Not of the same nature. 

Senator Talmadge. That was your first endeavor? 

Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. If someone attempted to get you to infiltrate 
another political campaign today, would you do so? 

Mr. McMinoway. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Would you think that in the future all political 
candidates and political parties mio;ht well beware of volunteers? 

Mr. McMinoway. No, sir, I don't think they need be paranoia on 
volunteer workers. 

Senator Talmadge. You would suggest they check their credentials 
rather closely though, would you not? 

Mr. MclNIiNOWAY. I would suggest that people who are put in posi- 
tions of high responsibility and duty be checked out or be confirmed 
in their convictions. 

Senator Talmadge. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, Mr. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. No questions. 

Senator Ervin. I have none except to say that Aesop had a fable 
sometime about sheep wearing wolf's clothing or vice versa. Thank 
you. That is all. 

Counsel will call the next witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Fred Taugher. 

Senator Ervin. Will you raise your right hand. Do you swear that 
the evidence which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole truth. 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Taugher. I do. " 

Senator Ervin. Do you have a lawyer? 


Mr. Taugher. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I take it you don't desire a lawyer. 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. ]\Ir. Chairman, Mr. James Hamilton, assistant chief 
counsel, will question this witness. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Taugher, would you state your full name, 
please ? 

Mr. Taugher. My full name is Frederick Joseph Taugher. 

Mr. Hamilton. And woidd you spell your last name for the record, 
please ? 


Mr. Taugher. Yes. The spelling is unusual, it is T-a-u-g-h-e-r. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Wliat is your address? 

Mr. Taugher. 6400 South Land Park Drive, Sacramento. 

Mr. Hamilton. And your present employment? 

Mr. Taugher. I am presently employed by the California Legisla- 
ture as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Assembly. 

Mr. Hamilton. What position did you hold in the campaign of Sen- 
ator McGovern ? 

Mr. Taugher. In the fall campaign of the general election I was 
employed as the southern California campaign coordinator. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what was your tenure in this position ? 

Mr. Taugher. From August through early October. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was the city of Los Angeles in your jurisdiction? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes; it, along with, I think, five or six counties in 
southern California. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, Mr. Taugher, to set the context for the ques- 
tions I am going to ask you, and also for tlie questions that I am 
going to ask Lieutenant Hickman who will follow you, I want to read 
certain brief portions of the testimony of Mr. Haldeman who ap- 
peared before this committee. First, I am reading where Mr. Haldeman 
was discussing the type of prankster activity he had agreed to support. 

The pranksterism that was envisioned would have specifically excluded such 
acts as the following: Violent demonstrations and disruptions, heckling or shout- 
ing down speakers, burning or bombing campaign headquarters, ph.vt^ical damage 
or trashing of headquarters in other buildings, harassment of candidate's wives 
and families by obscenities, disruption of the National Convention by splattering 
dinner guests with eggs and tomatoes, indecent exposure, rock throwing, assaults 
on delegates, slashing bus tires, smashing windows, setting trash fires under the 
gas tank of a bus, knocking policemen from their motorcycles. 

I know that this committee and most Americans would agree that such activi- 
ties cannot be tolerated in a political campaign but unfortunately the activities 
I had described are all activities which took place in 1972 against the campaign 
of the President of the United States by his opponents. 

Senator Ervin. We will have a recess, JMr. Taugher, in order to 
go to vote. 


Senator Weicker [presiding]. The hearings will come to order, and 
the n^^sistant majority counsel will proceed with the questioning. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Taugher. when we took that recess I was read- 
ing to you brief portions of Mr. Haldeman's testimony and I would 
like to continue reading this to set the context for the questions that 
I am going to ask you. 

I know that this committee and most Americans will agree, that such activities 
cannot be tolerated in a political campaign, but unfortunately the activities I 
have described are all activities which took place in 1972 against the campaign 
of the President of the United States by his opponents. Some of them took place 
with the clear knowledge and consent of agents of the opposing candidate in the 
last election, others were acts of people who clearly — who were clearly un- 
sympathetic to the President but may not have had direct orders from the 
opposing camp. 

Now, that ends the quotation. 

Mr. Haldeman later provided testimony as to several specific events 
to back up his general statement, including testimony regarding two 
events that occurred in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Haldeman gave as an example of the burning and bombing of 
campaign headquarters an incident in Hollywood, Fairfax Avenue, 


where a Nixon campaign office was, and I am quoting again, "Blown 
up by a bomb," and the following question and answer appeared : 

Mr. Thompson. You .say .some of those in.stances took place with the clear 
knowledge and consent or agreement of the opposing candidate in the last elec- 
tion. Do you have any basis for that statement? 

Mr. IIaldeman. I understand there is some in tJie documentation. But one 
specific that comes immediately to mind of that is on the occasion of a trip to 
Los Angeles at the Century Plaza Hotel at which there was a very large demon- 
stration staged out in front. The handbills to notify people of this demonstra- 
tion, of this planned demonstration, were to be, at what time, and that sort of 
thing were handed out by the McGovern headquarters and I understand there 
was a phone call program set up in McGovern headquarters there for calling 
people to urge them to come and attend this demonstration. 

Now, I would first like to question you regarding the Century 
Plaza Hotel incident, and first, do you recall the date of that occur- 
rence ? 

Mr. Taugher. I believe it was September 27. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what event prompted the demonstration? 

Mr. Taugher. It was the visit of the President to Los Angeles where 
he was beino- honored at a large fundraising dinner within the Cen- 
tury Plaza Hotel. The demonstration was outside the hotel. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you attend a meeting in September prior to 
the demonstration, where the demonstration was discussed? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes; I did. About a week prior to the demonstra- 
tion, there was a small meeting in the McGovern headquarters where 
two people associated with the campaign had reported to me that the 
prior night, an organizational meeting had taken place relative to a 
forthcoming demonstration and they described what was planned 
and asked what assistance, if any, the ISIcGovern campaign might 
want to give. 

Mr. Hamilton. Who were the people in this meeting? 

Mr. Taugher. The two people were Mrs. Jo Seidita and Mrs. Miri- 
am Ludwig. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was anyone else at the meeting? 

Mr. Taugher. Rick Stearns was in the meeting. He was on the 
national McGovern staff and at that time, was visiting Los Angeles. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was Stearns there for the entire meeting or only a 
part of the meeting ? 

Mr. Taugher. He was — the meeting, as a matter of fact, was un- 
derway prior to my arrival between Stearns and the other two in- 
dividuals. I came into the meeting late. I do not — franldy, I do not 
recall how long he stayed. For some period of time, though, the four 
of us did discuss the forthcoming demonstration. He may have left 
before I did, I am not sure. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you tell the committee who INIrs. Ludwig and 
Mrs. Seidita are, what organizations they are affiliated with ? 

Mr, Taugher. ]\rrs. Seidita was an employee of the southern Cali- 
fornia McGoA'ei-n campaign. Mrs. Ludwig was associated with the cam- 
paign and had a long experience of activity with various j^eace- 
oriented organizations in southern California. 

Mr. PlA:\riLTON. Xow, at that meeting, were you told who the people 
were that were sponsoring and organizing the Century Plaza demon- 
stration ? 

Mr. Taugher. It was my understanding from them that the sponsors 
consisted of a coalition of various peace organizations that had con- 


ducted activities in the past in the Los Angeles area. It was described 
to me as a very responsible group consisting of the professional people, 
members of the clergy, responsible individuals. They were nonviolent 
and responsible. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was there any indication at this meeting that the 
demonstration to be held at the Century Plaza would be less than 
peaceful ? 

Mr. Taugher. No. We were very careful to discuss the precautions 
that were being taken to make sure that it was a peaceful demonstra- 
tion, and I was satisfied on the basis of the information that they gave 
me that it would be a peaceful demonstration. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that the organizers of the demon- 
stration had secured the services of a number of monitors to preserve 
order at the demonstration ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, during this meeting, was it proposed that the 
McGovern ])hone banks in the Los Angeles headquarters would be used 
to solicit demonstrators to come to this demonstration ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall who made this proposal? 

Mr. Taugher. I do not recall specifically whether the proposal came 
from one of the others or whether I volunteered it. I was interested in 
assisting the demonstration in some way provided it would not inter- 
fere with any of the higher priority activities of the campaign. We 
did have a telephone bank in the headquarters that was not being used 
at that point in time. So during that meeting, I did agree that our 
phone bank would be available to tlie sponsors of the demonstration 
but that we could not provide any manpower or any other sort of assist- 
ance and that if the organizers of the demonstration wanted to recruit 
their own people to use those phones to call persons on their own lists 
to encourage them to attend the demonstration, it was agreeable with 

INIr. Hamilton. So it was your decision, then, that the phone banks 
could be used, is that correct ? 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did this decision receive approval from those 
higher up in the campaign than you ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes: to the extent that Rick Stearns was at the meet- 
ing and lie agreed with this program that we came up with. 

Mr. Hamilton. He did indicate that this proposal had his ap- 
proval ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Taugher. Correct, yes. 

Mr.HAMiLTON. Now. were these phone banks actually used ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes, they were, I believe for 2 successive nights. 

Mr. Hamilton. How many phones were involved ? 

Mr. Taughfj?. I do not recall precisely. I would guess, though, that 
in the room that we used for the telephone bank, we probably had 12 
or 15 phones. 

Mr. Hamilton. And durinc: these two nights that the phones Avere 
used, were they fully occupied ? 

Mr. Taugher. I think so, yes. There may be a couple of phones that 
went unused. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were the phones manned by the people who were 
sponsoring the demonstration as you had required ? 


Mr. Taugiier. Yes, they were. 

Mr. ITamiltox. Do you know if any INIcGovern staff workers made 
any cnlls to solicit demonstrators ? 

Mr. Taltgher. No, they did not. We were interested in the Mc- 
Govern staff workers to concentrate on our voter regfistration drive 
and for tiiat reason I did not want tliem to participate in the effort. 

Mr. Hamilton. Wliat lists were used to make the phone calls? 

Mr. Taugiier. Lists that were compiled by the people sponsoring 
the demonstration. I belie\-e on their lists, they had names of persons 
who had in the past attended various activities sponsored by one or 
another of the groups that made up the coalition. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were any of the McGovern lists used for this 

Mr. Taugiier. No, 1 specifically told them that we would not allow 
them to use our lists and that we would be calling the names on those 
lists for other activities and we did not want to overkill. We did not 
want to wear out our own supporters for things that were not of high 

Mr. Hamilton. Were the persons called told that the demonstra- 
tion was part of the JSrcGovein campaign activity ? 

Mr. Taugiier. Frankly, I do not know. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if the callers were told that the calls 
were coming from McGovern headquarters? 

]\rf. Taugiier. I do not know that, either. 

Mr. Hamilton. T believe you testitied that these phone banks were 
used for two nights. For how long each night were the banks in 

Mr. Taugiier. As far as I recall, it must have been from about 6 
o'clock to 9 o'clock or thereabouts. Generally, from the dinner hours 
to or 9 :30 is the acceptable time for phoning in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why were the banks not used longer than 2 days? 

INIr. Taugiier. Because after the second night, w-e were informed 
that Senator McGovern would be visiting Los Angeles on the follow- 
ing week and so we then needed to use those telephones to call our own 
lists of supporters to encourage them to attend an event that we were 
sponsoring for his appearance. 

Mv. Hamilton. Now, did any IMcGovern staff worker help distribute 
leaflets announcing this demonstration and encouraging attendance? 

Mv. Taugiier. Only to a very minimal extent. The sponsors of the 
demonstration printed up a large number of leaflets and asked for our 
assistance in distributing them. I told them that I felt that any massive 
distribution would interfere with our other activities, but that we 
would be ngi'eeable to i)lacing a small number of leaflets in each of our 
storef I'ont quarters for the information of the people that came to those 

Mr. Hamilton. How many storefronts would that involve ? 

Mr. Taugiier. Well, I would think that about that time in the 
southern California area, we must have had 100 or more storefronts. 
I do not know precisely how- many of them received those leaflets, 
because they were only given out in instances where a storefront came 
to the headquarters to pick up a regular order of McGovern literature 
and we did not make any special effort to get the leaflets to head- 
quarters unless we had some other reason for a contact. 


Mr. Hamiltox. Would you estimate that leaflets were distributed in 
over half of the storefronts ? 

Mr, Taugiier. If I had to guess, I would say approximately half of 
the storefronts probably received them. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Was the distribution of these leaflets approved at 
the same meeting; where the use of the j^hone banks was approved? 

Mr. Taugiier. I think so. I think if not at the same meeting, it was 
later that afternoon. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Do you recall if ]Mr. Stearns participated in the 
decision to distribute leaflets? 

Mr. Taugiier. It is likely that he may not have been there at that 

Mr. Hamiltox. Now, did any INIcGovern staff' worker place or pay 
for advertisements announcing the demonstration? 

Mr. Taugher. No. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Did any McGovern staff worker participate in 
the making and distribution of signs or placards to be used in the 

Mr. Taugher. No, not at all. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Were callers to the McGovern headquarters, people 
who called in. told how to reach the demonstration and given instruc- 
tions to bring a sign to the demonstration ? 

Mr. Taugher. No. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Did you attend this rally, Mr. Taugher ? 

Mr. Taugher. No, I did not go. 

]\Ir. Hamiltox. To your knowledge, did any McGovern staff mem- 
bers attend ? 

Mr. Taugher. Only one person who I can think of specifically, and 
she did attend and returned to the headquarters right aftenvard and 
described for me what happened. 

Mr. Hamiltox. To your knowledge, did any McGovern staff worker 
suggest that the rally should take a violent turn ? 

Mr. Taugher. No, not at all. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Have you admitted in the public record that McGov- 
ern phone banks were used to contact potential demonstrators? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes. 

Mr. Hamiltox. And when did you do this? 

Mr. Taugher. I believe it was between the time that we ceased 
using — allowing the use of the phones and the time of the demonstra- 
tion itself. It came in response to inquiries and Ave did admit that we 
had used the phones. 

Mr. Hamiltox. So it was in the public record before the demonstra- 
tion took place? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Now, as the campaign coordinator for southern Cali- 
fornia, did you issue an apology for this activity ? 

Mr. Taugher. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Why did you not issue an apology ? 

Mr. Taugher. I don't think there is anything to apologize for. I 
think it was a proper activity. 

Mr. Hamiltox. AVas the campaign, the ^NFcGovern campaign, asked 
by the California Committee for the Re-Election of the President to 
post a million dollar bond to cover the damages that might occur at 
the demonstration? 


Mr. Taugher. Yes. 

Mr. Hamiltox. IVliat was their response to this ? 

Mr. Taugher. There was no response. 

INIr. PIamii>ton. No response ? 

Mr. Taugher. We did not respond. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, turning to the second incident that was re- 
ferred to by INIr. Haldeman in the testimony that I read to you, when 
did you first learn of the so-called Hollywood bombing? 

Mr. Taugher. The morning after, I heard a news report or saw 
something in the newspaper to the extent that a Nixon headquarters 
in Hollywood did have a fire. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you have any knowledge now as to the date of 
that incident? 

IMr. Taugher. Around September 16th, September 17th, thereabouts, 
I think. 

j\Ir. Hamilton. And do you have any firsthand knowledge of that 

Mr. Taugher. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Hamilton. We are going to receive evidence in a minute from 
Lt. Hickman, who is sitting behind you, as to what occurred in that 
incident, but I have one further question to ask you. To your knowl- 
edge, was any McGovern staff per-son involved in any way in this so- 
called ])ombing at the Nixon headquarters? 

Mr. Taugher. Certainly not. 

Mr. PIamilton. Mr. Chairman, I have no further qeustions. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Taugher, as I understand it, you were the southern California 
campaign coordinator for Senator McGovern? 

INIr. I'augher. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Rich Stearns whom you mentioned, what was his 
position ? 

Mr. Taugher. His position was — I am not sure of the exact title, 
but essentially Western States coordinator. 

Mr. Tho:mpson. Do you know how many States he served as 
coordinator for? 

Mr. Taugher. I think ]:>robably most of the States west of the 
Rockies. I think he also had Texas and maybe some others. 

]\rr. Thompson. Wlio would lin ve been his superior ? 

Mr, Taugher. Gary Hart, I believe. 

Mr. Thompson. And he was at the meeting that you referred to 
where the agreement to assist the antiwar demonstrators was made? 

]\rr. Tat'oih-R. Ricli Stearns was tliore : yes. 

Mr. Thompson. And so was Mary Jo Seidita ? 

Mr. Taugher. Correct. 

Mr. Thompson. A'SHiat was her position in the McGovern campaiirn ? 

Mr. Taugher. She was our director of special organizations. That 
is, her responsibility was to coordinate the activities of special com- 
mittees — teachers' groups, other professional groups, groups of people 
that were united by some common interest such as equal rights 

Mr. Thoimpson. Was this a salaried position ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes, it was. 


Mr. Thompson. Miriam Ludwig, what was her position with the 
McGovern campaign ? 

Mr. Taugiier. She served essentially as our liaison under Jo Seidita's 
direction, as our liaison with various peace-oriented organizations in 
the southern Calf ornia area. 

Mr. Thompson. Where did this meeting take place ? 

Mr. Taugher. The meeting in which we participated ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Taugher. In McGovern headquarters in an office adjoining my 
own office. 

Mr. Thompson. Whose office? 

Mr, Taugher. It was an office assigned to Barbara McKenzie, who 
was a deputy to Rick Stearns. 

Mr. Thompson. Was she a resident representative for the national 
campaign in California ? 

Mr. Taugher. That is right, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Was Barbara McKenzie present during this meeting? 

Mr. Taugher. I don't believe she was. She may have been in and out, 
but I have no specific recollection of her being there. 

Mr. Thompson. How was the subject brought up and who brought 
it up ? 

Mr. Taugher. I am not sure how it first came up. As I said a few 
moments ago, the meeting was underway at the time I walked in. The 
two women were discussing with Rick their attendance at the prior 
night's organizational meeting and as I came in, he turned to me and 
brought me up to date on what they had discussed up to that point. 

Mr. Thompson. Where had they held this prior organizational meet- 
ing referred to the prior night ? 

Mr. Taugher, At the Methodist Church, I think, on Wilshire Boule- 
vard, It was in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Thompson. Who attended that meeting from McGovern head- 
qua iters? 

Mr. Taugher. My understanding is that Mrs. Ludwig was there. I 
don't know for sure whetlier Mrs. Seidita was there or not. 

Mr, Thompson. Do you know of any other individuals who attended 
that meeting, either with the McGovern campaign or not with the 
McGovern campaign ? 

Mr. Taugher. No, I don't, 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know any organizations, particular organi- 
zations that were represented at that meeting? 

Mr. Taugher. I don't recall any specifically by name now. 

Mr. Thompson. I have here a page from the Los Angeles Free Press. 
It is published every Friday and dated September 22 to October 2, 
1972. October 2 was a Friday. It lists several groups. Among those 
participating in the meeting — referring, evidently, to this meeting in 
the church referred to before — the Women's Strike for Peace, Another 
Mother for Peace, Peace Action Council. October 14 Coalition. Na- 
tional Peace Action Coalition, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, 
Individuals Against the War, Bar Sinister, National Lawyers Guild, 
Los Angeles Anti-War Defense Conmiittee, Students for a Democratic 
Societv. Vietnamese Student I^nion for Peace, American Civil Liber- 
ties Lfnion, Women for Socialist Workers Party, Progressive Labor 
Party, Echo Park, Silver Lake Food Conspiracy, Women Against the 


AYar, Yoiiiiir Socialists Alliance. Student ]\robilization Committee. 
Indo-China Peace Campaifnu Pentao:on Papers Project. Citizens 
Research Investigratino: Committee, West Side Peace Committee, Set 
the Date, as well as various reli<iious o-roups, and George McGovern 

Are you familiar with any of these gi-oups ? 

Mr. "Tai^chkr. I am familiar with a number of them by name. One 
of the assistant minority counsel several weeks aoo described that 
article to me. On the basis of the information that tlie representatives 
from our campaign gave me in our meeting, on the basis of the demon- 
stration, the actual demonstration and how it took place, I frankly 
find it difficult to believe that that is a correct accounting of who was 
at tliat meeting. 

Mr. TiroMrsoN. If this had been a correct accounting and you had 
known about it, would it have caused you some concern ? 

Mr. Taugiier. Yes, it certainly would have. If I had Icnown for snre 
or had any reason to believe that some of the organizations listed 
there had been at the organizational meeting, I would not have lent 
the assistance of the INIcGovern campaign. I only lent the assistance 
of the campaign because I was reasonably certain on the basis of the 
information that I had that it would be a peaceful demonstration. 

Mr. TiioaiPSON'. Why would you have withheld assistance had you 
known about some of these gi'oui)S? 

Mr. Taugiier. Because some of these groups, in my opinion, have 
a history of violent activities. 

Mr. TiioMPSOx. All right. There was a demonstration against a 
]-)rior President in the previous election, was thei^e not, in the same 

Mr. Taugiier. No, that was not during a campaiixn, that was in 

INIr. TuoiMPSOx. That is correct, 1967. Against President Johnson? 

INIr. Taugher. That is right. 

Mr. Thompson. It was also at the Century Plaza, is that right? 

Mr. Taugiier. That is right. 

Mr. Thompsox. Did it also jirotest the war? 

Mr. Taitgiter. Yes, it did. Thei'e was some violence at that demon- 
stration. I did not paiticipate in it. I was a guest at the dinner that 
evening and I was inside the hotel. I did not see any of the demon- 
strators myself, but I read the news accounts and saw tele\ised cover- 
age of i)arts of the demonstration. From that experience, I was cei'tain 
that i)recautions were taken then and precautions would be taken 
again this time to protect the President and all the guests of the hotel. 
So, I was not concerned to that extent. 

But the demonstration that you have just now referred to in 1967 
was 5 years )irior to the one that we are speaking about here, involving 
a different time and a lot of different individuals, so I saw no reason 
to think that because in 1067, this was a demonstration over the same 
issiie at the same IcK-ation. that thei'e would be any reason to conclude 
that we would once acain have violent activity. 

Mr. Tiio:mpsox. What do you lecall happening in 1968 at the Cen- 
tuiT Plaza? 

Mr. Taugher. I do not recall any specifics. I know there was a lot of 
pushing and shoving and some of the demonstrators were jailed, 


Mr. TiroMPSON. Destruction of property? 

Mr. Taugker. I do not think so, althoug-li I do not recall for sure. 

Mr. Thompson. But it was enough to 

Mr. Taugher. They wei-e all contained on the street, none of the 
demonstiutors entered the hotel. 

JNIr. TiiOMPSOx. There was enougli to cause you some concern when 
you were talking about this demonstration that the same thing did not 
happen again, is that correct ? 

]\Ir. Taugher. I was naturally concerned tliat we not have any vio- 
lent activity. I do not see how that would further our cause in any way 
or do anyone any good. 

]Mr. Thompson. Did you make any inquiry from ]\Iary Jo Seidita 
or ]\[iriam Ludwig as to what groups they were planning the demon- 
stration with? 

'Mv. Tai'gher. She named for me some of the groups and each of the 
groups that she named were ones that I recognized to be responsible 
grou])S. We discussed the monitoi'ing system whereby there would be 
parade marshals and parade routes. We discussed that there would be 
an official liaison with the Los Angeles Police Department, and I 

^Ir. TiiOMPSOx. And it turned out to be a peaceful demonstration, 
did it not? 

^fr. Tai'ghee. To my knowledge, it was one of the most peaceful. 

Mr. TiioMPSox. "Would it he accurate to say that you took the chance 
on a possible viok'ut demonstration thinking that it would not be, and 
in fact, your chance proved well taken ? 

INIr. Taugher. I do not think that is quite accurate. The demonstra- 
tion was going to take place whether we participated in it or not. 

Mr. TiiOMPSOx. That has nothing to do with the propensity for 
violence, does it, as to whether or not you participated in it ? 

Mr. Taugher. No. 

Mr. Thompson. You were concerned that there be no violence. You 
knew in lOGT that a similai' demonstration there had been violent ? 

Mr. Taugher. That is right. 

IMr. Thompson. In the same place for the same cause against the 
President of the Ignited States. 

Mr. TatTxHI':r. That is right. 

Mv. Thompsox. So would it not be correct to say, ]:)ased upon the 
information that you were furnished on the nature of the people par- 
ticipating, that you took a chance that it would not be violent? 

]Mr. Tai'gher. There is always a risk when there is any sort of group 
activity, I think, that there will be violence. 

ISIr. Thompsox. Your answer would be yes ? 

]\Ir. Taugher. So my answer would be yes, we did take a chance to 
that extent. 

Mr. Tho:mpson. All right. 

Mr. Taioher. I^ut we took every reasonable precaution to make sure 
there would be no violence. 

Mr. Thompson. What precautions did you personally take? 

^Ir. Taugher. I did not take any direct action myself. As I said, 
I did not consider the demonstration to be our campaign activity. 

Mr. Thompson. In your discussions did you not conclude that this 
would help the campaign to rekindle the interest in the war? 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 12 


Mr. Taugiier. That is right. T did feel tlmt a successful demonstra- 
tion on that issue would be of benefit to the campaign. 

Mr. TiiOMPSOx. And they originally, I believe, asked you for other 
assistance in the demonstration and you turned them down; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Taugiier. That is right. 

Mr. Thompson-. And the reason you turned them down was because 
you had a manpower problem? 

Mr. Taugiier. We had higher priorities at that time as to what we 
should do with our campaign personnel and resources. 

Mr. Tiio^rpsoN. So you agreed to let them use your phone bank of 
12 to 15 telephones? 

Mr. Taugiier. That is right. j 

Mr. Thompson. And you agreed to let them distribute fliers adver- 1 
tising the demonstration ? j 

Mr. Taugiier. To distribute fliers on to the extent where it would not | 
utilize our manpower in doing so. 

Mr. Thompson. Would it be accurate to say that fliers advertising the I 
demonstration were distributed to approximately 100 headquarters | 
offices ? 

Mr. Taugher. I would guess probably they got to about 50 head- 
quarters offices and in each instance there was probably no more than I 
15 or 20 fliers at those 50 offices. I think the number of fliers that were 
distributed by our camDai<rn was a very small percentage, probably of 
all of the fliers distributed. 

Mr. Thompson. Why would there only be 15 — 10 or 15 fliers? 

Mr. Taugiier. Because it was not our intention to massively distrib- 
ute those fliers. It was our intention simply to put the fliers on a table 
of literature near the door so that people coming into the headquarters, 
for one reason or another, would be made aware of the demonstration 
and could attend it if they wished to do so. 

We did not want to take any of the manpower from that headquarters 
and have it distributed at shopping centers or door-to-door or any- 
thing of that sort. 

Mr. Thompson. Was there an effort, then, to place a limitation on 
the number of fliers in the headquarters ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes. We did not 

Mr. Thompson. "Wliy, if you thought it was the thing to do and it 
would not require anv more manpower for you to liave a thousand? 

Mr. Tat*gher. Well, T think it would have been a waste of printing 
to put a thousand fliers near the front door when we did not expect 
heavy traffic in those headquarters. 

Mr. Thompson. Would that not be a decision for those primarily 
organizing tlie demonstration to make? 

]\Ir. Taugiier. No. T think it is — the use of the McGovern campaign 
lu'nd(|UMrters is ])roiiorly a decision of tlie cam])aign manaa'ement. 

]\ri-. Thompson. I am talking about whether or not certain materials 
would l)e Avasted. Were you concerned as to the organizers of this 
demonstration wastino; their own material ? 

^Ir. Taugher. Well, no, T supppose that decision is properly theirs. 
There was in my judgment, though, a danger that if we distributed 
an excessive mimber of fliers to one of our headquarters that the per- 
sonnel in that headquarters Avould take it upon themselves to take 


time away from their voter registration activities and begin to dis- 
tribute those fliers on their own. 

Mr. Thompson. So you felt if there were a few fliers lying around the 
l:eadquarters, workers would not be tempted to go out and distribute 
them 'i But if you had too many there, your workers would be tempted 
to go out and distribute them, even possibly contrary to instructions? 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Is that your feeling on it? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether or not any of the same people 
who organized the demonstration at the Century Plaza in 1972 were 
also some of the same people who organized the demonstration against 
President Johnson in 1967 ? 

Mv. Taugher. I think it is likely that, in a demonstration of that 
size, there probably were a number of people who participated in the 
organization of those. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you inquire specifically when the proposal was 
being put out as to whether or not there were certain groups or indi- 
viduals who had promoted this demonstration that turned out to be 
a violent encounter ? 

Mr. Taugth.r. No. I did not because, like I say, on the basis of our 
conversations about what precautions were being taken for the 1972 
demonstration, I was satisfied that those precautions would — those 
steps were being followed through, and there would be no chance for 
any violence such as in 1967. 

Mr. Thompson. No chance. How many demonstrators showed up 
there, I heard estimates from 6,000 to 10,000. 

Mr. Taugher. I do not know. I have heard estimates from 3,000 
:to 8,000. 1 do not know how many were there. 

Mr. Thompson. Is it your opinion if you have this many people in- 
-volved, that, if you take certain precautions you can prevent a demon- 
:stration from becoming violent if certain of those individuals desire 
to be violent ? 

INIr. Taugher. No. 

Mr. Thompson. No one is arguing with the fact that it was a non- 
violent demonstration. I am more interested in the position you were 
in there when you made the decision to go ahead and let the McGovern 
lorganization do this to the extent that you described. 

Mr. Taugher. I think there is always — there is no way to absolutely 
[guarantee a nonviolent activity. 

Mr. Thompson. But if you have a history of a prior demonstration 
at the same location, and the same cause, would you not say there would 
be a little bit greater likelihood of violence in a similar demonstration 
against another President for the same cause ? 

Mr. Taugher. No; I do not think the location, the fact that is was a 
similar location, was a factor at all. 

]Mr. THo:NrpsoN. The fact that similar individuals would be involved 
in jiromoting it ? 

Mr. Taugher. I think that similar — some of the same individuals 
who participated in the 1967 demonstration would likely participate 
in any similar demonstration anywhere in the Los Angeles area. I 
think the fact that it was at the Century Plaza Hotel for a second time 
had nothing to do with it. 


Mr. Thompson. You don't think there was any more likelihood for a 
violent demonstration 

Mr. Tauoiier. No. 

Mr. Thompson [continuing] . At the Century Plaza j I 

Mr. Taugher. No, I don't. |,l 

Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Than in New Orleans or anywhere ]f 
else in liglit of the fact that the only other prior demonstration that I [ 
know of , of that size, that dimension, did produce violence. You don't j 
think there is any greater likelihood of violence in this case than if it J 
had been in another city ? 

Mr. Taugher. No. 

IVIr. Thompson. That was in your mind at the time you agreed 

Mr. Tauoher. At the time I agreed to lend the help of the INIcGovern 
campaign to promote that demonstration, I was reasonably certain 
that there woidd be no violence — and there was none. 

Mr. Thompson. You stated that the telephone, the use of the tele- 
phone, was discontinued shortly after that. 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct ; yes. 

Mr. Thompson. And that decision was made because Senator Mc- 
Govern, I believe, was coming to town and you needed the manpower 
to rally support for him when he arrived ? 

Mr. Taugher. That is right. 

Mr. Thompson. You needed the telephone ? 

Mr. Taugher. That is right. It was our practice whenever he came 
to Los Angeles to phone names on lists that we had to encourage them 
to attend the event at which he would be appearing. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. I am referring now to a story in the Wash- 
ington Post of September 24, 1972, which says "Anti-War Use of 
^McGovern Phones Ends." Let me ask you this first: When the story 
broke about the fact that McGovem phones were being used, did any- 
one in the McGovern campaign besides the ones vou had been dealing 
with inquire of you as to how this had come about? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes. The statewide communications director for the 
campaign asked me what we had done and how it came about, and I 
gave him essentially the same infoT-mation I am giving you today. 

Mr. Thompson. Who was that individual ? 

Mr. Taugher. His name is Lew Hass. 

Mr. Thompson. And you told him that you had a meeting and that 
you had discussed it ancl you decided to approve it ? 

Mv. Taugher. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Steams participated and he approved it? 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. And that the telephones were used and that head- 
quartei-s were used to place certain fliere advertising the demonstra- 
tion, you explained all this to him? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Thompson. Who is :Mr. Fred Epstein ? 

Mr. Taugher. He wjis the press secretary in the campaign and he 
repoi-ted to Lew Hass. He is the one in the campaign who frequently 
fielded questions from reporters if they would call the headquarters 
for information. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you talk to Mr. Epstein about this? 

Mr. Taugher. No ; I did not. 


Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether anyone else there at head- 
quarters talked to JNIr, Epstein about it? 

Mr. Taugher. I don't know. 

Mr. Thompson. In the natural course of events, if Mr. Hass had 
come to you and asked for information, would he then impart it to 
Mr. Epstein for his- 

Mr. Taugher. Probably so. 

Mr. Thompson. Let me read this article; it says: 

Anti-war activists used telepliones at tlie local campaign headquarters of 
democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern for two nights to promote 
a planned demonstration against President Xixon, a McGovern spokesman says. 

But McGovern campaign officials have told the activists they cannot use their 
telepliones any longer, the spokesman, Fred Epstein said. 

"I don't know who allowed them to use the phones or who told them to stop," 
Epstein said today. "It probably was some overzealous person in the campaign. 

"Once I knew it was not going on any longer I didn't pursue trying to find 
out who was responsible," Epstein said. "The important thing is that the anti-war 
activists no longer are using the McGovern phones." 

It ai^i^ears that Mr. Epstein felt, or that the official position of the 
McGovern campaign at that time was that it was not a wise or proper 
thing to use McGovern telephones to promote a massive demonstration 
against the President. 

Would you say that is a fair characterization of his position at that 
time or what the McGovern position was ? 

Mr. Taugher. Lew Hass and I disagreed on the use of the phones. 
It is possible that the story which you have just quoted is a story 
written after a reporter asked Fred Epstein questions directly, and 
that it is not as the result of a printed release that we put out, I am 
not sure which is the case. But from the language in there I would con- 
elude that it was probably the result of direct inquu-ies to him, and he 
may have responded before fully checking it out. 

Mr. Thompson. In other words, he might have been misrepresenting 
the McGovern position in California anyway at that time as to whether 
or not 

Mr. Taugher. It misrepresented my position, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Your position ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Were you the one to set the policy in a matter like 

Mr. Taugher. Essentially, yes, although Lew has had overall state- 
wide responsibility for all ))ress relations. 

;Mr. Thompson. What about Rick Stearns. You were responsible to 
him, were you not ? 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you get an expression from him or do you know 
if Mr. Hass did with regard to the wisdom or propriety of using Mc- 
Govern phones to help promote a massive demonstration against the 
I President? 

Mr. Taugher. As I said earlier Eick Stearns was present at the meet- 
ing at which we discussed this. In the normal course of events I would 
not have, however, checked it with him. I felt that I had the authority 
in my i^osition to authorize the use of those phones. He was no longer 
in the State at the time that these press stories were out. 

Mr. Thompson. Who was not ? 

Mr. Taugher. Rick was not. 


Mr. Thompson. Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. TAroHER. And T did not talk to liim an}^ more about it after that 
initial ineotin^. I don't know whether Lew has it or not. 

Mr. TiioMPSOX. It ai)i)ears Mr. Hass shares Mr. Ei:)stein's opinion 
anyway in an article in the Washinoton Post dated Wednesday, Oc- 
tober 3, 1973. entitled "GOP Probers Seeking 'Dirty Tricks' of Foes,'' 
they quote Mr. Epstein as saying : 

As reported in October 1972 the oflScial of McGovern's California campaign 
denied a Repul)lican charge that the demonstrators had been permitted to use 
the phones. Tlie official, Lew Hass, acknowledged that the demonstrators had. in 
fact, used the phones. "When we found out about it we stopped it immediately." 

Mr. Taugiier. "Well, that is not correct. 

Mr. TiroMrsox. But that correctly expresses his opinion, does it not. 
that it was an improper thing to do; would that not be a fair char- 
acterization of it? 

Mr. Taugher. That is true but the phones were stopped for a dif- 
ferent reason than that. 

Mr. Thompson. That is a second matter I wanted to ask you about. 
First of all. Mr. Epstein says it was probably some overzealous person 
in the campaign. 

Would it not be fair to say that that implied that there was no 
previous knowledge by any McGovern staffers with regard to the 
use of the phone bank ? 

Mr. Taugher. I think if I read that story I Avould make the same 
assumption that is not the case. 

IMr. Thompson. That leaves the w^rong impression, does it not ? 

Mr. Taugiier. It certainly does. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Hass' statement here that "When we ^ found 
out about it we stopped it immediately''; as a matter of fact, the rea- 
son you stop]:)ed it was because Senator McGovem was coming to town 
and you needed the phones for something else ? 

Mr. Taugiier. That is right. 

]Mr. Thompson. So INIr. Hass' story is not correct in that regard, is it ? 

Mr. Tax^gher. I do not consider it a correct interpretation under 
the circumstances. 

Mr. Thompson. And he knew better, did he not ? 

Mr. Taugiier. I don't know whether he knew better at the time that 
he made that statement, but we did have a discussion on a Saturday 
morning, I believe, relative to the use of the phone banks. 

Mr. Thompson. And you told him that you had planned it, that 
you had approved it. 

Mr. Taugiier. Yes. 

!Mr. Thompson. That you had authorized it. Rick Stearns had au- 
thorized it. 

]Mr. Tai^giier. Yes. 

^Ir. Thompson. What did he say to you at that time? 

Mr. Taugiier. He said that he thought that we should not have done 
it because of the potential danger from the press point of view. 

Mr. Thompson. Did he indicate to you as to how he was going to 
respond to the press inquiries about McGovern involvement ? 

Mr. Taugiier. He did not as I recall, no conclusions were reached at 
that meeting. 

Mr. Thompson. Would you say that putting out a story that it 
was probably some overly zealous person and that as soon as it was 


found out, it was stopped immediately, would be an attempted cover- 
up of what actually happened ? 

]\Ir. Taugiier. It might have been. 

Mr. Thompsox. IVIr. Chairman, I have certain photographs here 
which I understand the next witness has identified. If there is no 
disagreement to admitting them in the record, I think it might be 
more appropriate to admit the pictures into the record right now, al- 
though I understand that this particular witness does not identify 
them. If there is no objection, I will put these into the record at 
this time. 

]Mr. Hamiltox. ]Mr. Thompson, I don't have any objection to these 
pliotographs going into the record. I would like to know their source. 

Mr. TiioMPsox. The source is the White House photogra])her who 
was on the scene and took these photographs and supplied them to 
us at our request. 

Senator Ervix. Without objection, the photographs will be admitted 
in evidence as exhibits and appropriately numbered as such. 

[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Xos. 229A, 229B, 
229C. and 2291).*] 

Mr. TiiOMPSox. I will just refer to these briefly one at a time. As 
I stated, it is my understanding that with minor exceptions, a little 
rock throwing, a little egg throwing, perhaps, it did not get out of 
of hand, that it was a nonviolent demonstration. 

INIr. Taugiier. I am not even aware of the rock throwing and the 
Qgg throwing. 

]Mr. Tiio]MPSox. Well, we can supply it if it becomes an issue. 

This photograph [exhibit No. 229A] depicts signs, "$1,000 a plate 
for war and hate." ''Nixon and Thieu blood-brothers," with a swas- 
tika sign on one side. 

One demonstrator is holding what appears to be a Vietcong flag 
and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War have a banner prominently 
displayed in this particular photograph. 

The second photogra])h [exhibit No. 229B1 shows signs, demonstra- 
tors, "Stop the War, Stop the Murder, Stop Nixon." 

"Republicans for McGovern." 

Another ])hotograph [exhibit No. 2290] shows demonstrators hold- 
ing up a "McGovern-Shriver 1972" sign with part of a Nixon signi 
with skull and crossbones on that particular sign. 

Here is another ])hotograph [exhibit No. 229D] with a sign which 
can only be described as very vulgar and obscene. I won't repeat it, but 
I will make it a part of the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no further (juestions at this time. Thank you. 

Senator Ervix. This demonsti-ation in connection with which 
phones in the McGovern headquartei's were used was in September 
1972 and near the Century Plaza Hotel ? 

Mr. Taugiier. That is right. 
; Senator Ervix. That was the hotel at which President Nixon was to 
make a speech that evening? 

Mr. Taugher. That is correct, ves. sir. 

Senator Ervix. And did the ]\IcGovern headquarters do anything 
in connection with it except to authorize tlie use of the telephones 
and to distribute within its own headquarters certain fliers? 

*See pp. 4699-4702. 


Mr. Taugher. These are the only two actions that we took to sup- 
port the demonstrations. 
Senator Ervin. Now, the first amendment says : 

Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to 
assemble and to i)etition the Government for redress of grievances. 

Was this demonstration peaceful ? 

Mr. Taugher. My understanding- is that it was a peaceful demon- 
stration, yes, sir. 

Senator ER\^N. Did they petition the President for an end to the 
war in Vietnam by the placards and so forth ? 

Mr. Taugiiek. Yes; I would say so; although, as I understand it, he 
probably did not see the demonstrators because of the way that he 
arrived at the hotel and the area which the demonstrators were con- 
fined to. 

Senator Ervix. But the White House photographer evidently saw 
the demonstration, because he took some photograi^hs. i 

Mr. Taugher. I think he got the message about the war. 

Senator Ervin. Now, did you see anything in this demonstration 
which could not be properly construed as the exercise of the first 
amendment right by those demonstrating peacefully to assemble and 
to petition the Government for redress of grievances? 

Mt'. Taugher. Well, some of the signs as described by Mr. Thompson 
are personally repugnant to me, and I think to most people, but over- 
all, the huge majority of the demonstrators peacefully and quietly 
demonstrated and petitioned the President regarding an issue that 
they felt very strongly about. 

Senator Ervin. And demonstrating is an old American pastime, isn't , 

ISIr. Taugher.. It certainly is. 

Senator Ervix. I never demonstrate, but some people seem to get a! 
peculiar pleasure out of it. 

That is all. 

Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. I have no questions. 

Senator ER\^x. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Ixouye. I just have one question, sir. 

Mr. Taugher, in your meeting on September 21, 1972, where the! 
decision to use the phone banks was made, was the matter of violence 
ever discussed? 1 

Mr. Tai-giier. It was discussed to the extent that we reviewed the 1 
steps that the oi-ganizers of the demonstration would take in order j 
to prevent violence. i 

Senator Ixouye. AAHiat were these precautions or steps which were , 
taken ? 

Mr. Taugher. I am not sure of all of them. Essentially, they were 
going to appoint parade monitors, a very high number of them, a 
close ratio of monitors to demonstrators. They were going to have a 
pi-escribed parade route in front of the hotel. They had made an of- 
ficial connection with the Los Angeles Police Department. They had 
made the hotel aware of tlieii- intention to demonstrate. I don't know 
if you are familiar with the hotel, but the area where the demonstra- 
tion took place was on a broad street in front of tlie hotel. There is 
easy access for hotel guests from another direction so there would not 


be any point of confrontation. It was. in my opinion, ideally orijanized 
to prevent any violent incidents. 

Senator Ixouye. So this was a well publicized demonstration? 

Mr. Taigher. Yes; it had — — 

Senator Inouye. And were you satisfied that the hotel was in fact 
notified ? 

Mr. Taugiier. Only to the extent that I was told so by people whoso 
judgment I trusted. 

Senator Ixouye. Were you satisfied that the police department was 
appropriately notified? 

5lr. TAroiiER. Yes. 

Senator Ixouye. So in your mind, you were certain that all possible 
precautions were taken ? 

Mr. Taugiier. Certainly. 

Senator Ixouye. You have indicated that there is always a possi- 
bility of violence in any "froup activity. I presume by tliat, even a 
meetinfr of Boy Scouts could erupt into violence ? 

Mr. TaittIIer. Or a soccer game or a number of other examples can 
come to mind. 

Senator Ixouye. I was not in Los Angeles at that time, but was this 
demonstration violent, nonviolent, peaceful — how would you describe 
this, sir? 

Mr. Taugiier. I did not attend the demonstration myself. The re- 
ports that I have of the demonstration are that it was a very peaceful 

Senator Ix'ouye. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator Ervix'^. Does counsel or anyone else have any further 
questions ? 

Mr. TrioMRSOx^. I would like to ask one or two more questions. Mr. 
Chairman, since I am not clear on one point. 

How many people did you estimate would attend the demonstration ? 

Mr. Taugher. The estimates that had been given to me. as I recall, 
by the organizers, our people who had been in contact with the or- 
ganizers, was that it could go as high as 10.000. But, you know, I did 
not know whether to expect 2,500 or 10,000. 

Mr. TiioiMPSON. I do not want to get too much into the broader 
political or philosophical areas. I think that is probably not my role, 
but since it has been gone into, I think it is a proper question, since 
no one has questioned your statement that this is a proper, desirable 
campaign activity. I ain not referring to the right of any individual 
to parade or peacefully protest or even carry a vulgar and lewd sign 
or imply that the President is a Nazi or to imply that he is a mur- 
derer. That is constitutionally protected, as I understand it. But as 
a political activity of one partisan group against another, do you con- 
sider it proper and desirable for one political campaign to promote 
this sort of thing or assist in this sort of thing against its campaign 
opponent ? 

Mr. Taugiier. I think it is very proper for a campaign to peace- 
fiillv demonstrate against an opponent when it is relative to an issue. 
I think heckling, disruptive activities, ]:)ersonal attacks, things of that 
sort are not at all proper and I do not think that they have any proper 
place in American politics. 


Mr. Thompson. You think heckling does not have a proper plac( 
in American politics ? 

Mr. Taugher. I do not think it is a proper activity. 

Mr. Thompson. Why ? 

Mr. Taugher. Because I think it interferes with a person's right tc 
free speech. 

Mr. Thompson. What about 10,000 people? Sometimes that inter- 
feres witli a person's right to enter a building or to even get out of an 
automobile, and we will have, of course, other witnesses on some oi 
these other things. But 10,000 people, a group of that size in and ol 
itself carries that potential also, does it not ? 

Mr. Taugher. This particular demonstration was set up so thai 
there would be, as I understand it, no interference 

Mr. Thompson. I am talking in a broader sense now. 

Mr. Taugher. In a broader sense, I think I am essentially opposed 
to interfering with anyone's freedom to move about or to speak. 

Mr. Thompson. Would you have considered it a proper and desira- 
ble political campaign activity for the Republicans or the Commit- 
tee To Re-Elect or the local Republican organization in some way 
to have assisted demonstrators against Senator McGovern when he 
came to town; to have promoted a demonstration involving lewd 
signs and holding up signs that implied Senator McGovern was a 
Communist because he wanted to go and beg Hanoi on his knees? 

Mr. Taugher. I think if the Committee To Re-Elect had organized: 
a sizable demonstration in which, unfortunately, a handful of people 
carried signs of that sort, I'd think the Committee To Re-Elect had; 
conducted a proper activity and that they could not be held respon- 
sible for a few delinquents. I think if the Committee To Re-Elect, oni 
tlie other hand, had purposely put together a demonstration which, the 
purpose of which would be to insult the candidate or to carry lewd 
signs or to do anything of that nature, I think it would be very 

Mr. Thompson. Did you consider for a moment that that would not 
be the result in this particular demonstration ? Did you consider for a 
moment that there would not be lewd and obscene signs, signs imply- 
ing that tlie President was a Nazi ? 

Mr. Taugher. I think we all have to be very practical, and I pre- 
sume that if we had 10,000 demonstrators, we would have a handful 
of unfortunate signs. But I also presumed that the majority of thei 
demonstiators would be peaceful and polite and 

Mr. Thompson. You presumed that as a matter of course, that 
10,000 demonstrators, at a place where a previous demonstration had ., 
turned into a scene of violence ? | 

Mr. Taugher. That is right. > 

Mr. Thompson. With the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and 
otlier groups ? 

Mr. Taugher. I made that presumption. 

Mr. Thompson. You would presume that that would be a non- 
violent demonstration ? 

Mr. Taugher. Yes ; and as it turns out, my presumption was correct. 

Mr. Thompson. It was in this case. 

We have heard testimony concerning ordering pizza and limousines 
for an individual's campaign when actually they did not order them 


and causing that campaign to have to pay for it in other areas, presum- 
ably in the dirty trick area. But I presume what you are saying before 
this committee, and you have not been challenged on it, is that to 
assist in organizing a massive demonstration of 10,000 at a place that 
had previously produced a violent demonstration with the assump- 
tion that there would be some lewd and vulgar signs, that is proper, 
not only proper but desirable campaign activity for the United 
States of America ? 

Mr. Taugher. To assist a peaceful demonstration, yes. To order 
l)izzas and limousines, no. 

Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might pose a question 
here that has occurred to me as I have been listening to the colloquy. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Senator Weicker. This occurred, as I understand it, in September 
1972, is that correct? 

Mr. Taikjher. Right. 

Senator Weicker. Were the McGovern people not actually — I do 
not mean to say afraid, but were you not concerned, if anything, over 
the fact tliat demonstrating groups and any violence that emanated 
from those groups might be attributed to the candidate ? 

Mr. Taugher. Well, I suppose I would liave had, you know, a basic 
fear that any demonstration against the President, whether our cam- 
paign participated or not, would somehow reflect on the McGovern 
candidacy. It was a situation where there were two adversaries, and 
I think tlie public would likely make some assumptions. 

Senator Weicker. Because the tendency up to that point had been 
to paint — and we have had evidence to this extent before the commit- 
tee — your candidate as a radical, as one who would go along with such 
activity. Was this a concern to you, in other words ? 

I see, from the testimony that you give, a sort of conflict, I sup- 
pose, as between philosophy and practical politics, the conflict being 
one of, certainly, agreeing with the precepts of our Constitution and 
seeing that everybody does have the right to express themselves; on 
the other hand, having been struck with the label, if you will, of radi- 
cal, having it turned around on vou. Would vou like to comment on 

. Mr. Taugher. Well, I am not quite sure, Senator, what you are get- 
ting at. 

Senator Weicker. Well, what I am getting at is that — or what I am 
asking you is — was it a practical political concern o*^ the McGovern 
people that demonstrations that involved these types of groups would 
get out of hand, and I suppose further define an image in the Ameri- 
can voter's mind which was being attributed to your candidate? 

Mr. Taugher. Well, speaking, then, for a moment as a practical 
i; politician, the merits of the issue aside, I suppose that I would fear 
that in such a situation, a demonstration would reflect on us whether 
)or not we participated in it. If it were violent, even though we had 
mothing to do with it, it would reflect on us. On the other hand, if it 
Mvere a poorly attended demonstration and we had nothing to do with 
tit, it would' somehow reflect on us that people did not really care 
about that issue. 

Senator Weicker. I think you have answered by question. 


Senator Ervin. Are there any further questions ? j 

[No response.] 

Senator Ervix. If not, tliank you very much. You are excused, Mr. 

Mr. Dash. ]Mr. Chairman, before you call the next witness, who will 
be very brief, could I first, with regard to Mr. McMinoway, the earlier 
witness, have identified and intioduced in the record the various doc- 
uments wliich he has identified? They are tab 1 through tab 9 which 
wcM-e liis documents and from which I. Mr. Thompson, and the various 
members of the committee questioned him. 

Senator Ervix. Without objection, it is so ordered. They will be 
received as exhibits and appropriately numbered as such. 

[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 230 through 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Gary Hickman. 

Senator Ervtx". Will you raise your right hand please ? Do you swear 
tliat the evidence which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee 
on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. I do. 

ISIr. Hamiltox'. IMr. Hickman, would state your full name, please? 


Lieutenant Hickmax^. Gary Hickman. 

Mr. Hamiltox^. What is your business address? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. 150 North Los Angeles Street, Ix)S Angeles, 

INIt". HA:sriT,Tox'. AAHiat is your current employment ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. I am a lieutenant of police for the city of Los 

Mr. Hamiltox'. And your current position with the Los Angeles- 
Police Department is what ? 

Lieutenant Hicktvian. I am the adiutant to the chief of police. 

Mr. Hamilton. How long have you held this position ? 

Lieuteiumt Hickmax. For the past 4 months. 

Mr. Hamiltox'. Before that, what was your position ? 

Lieutenant Hickmax\ I Avas assigned as community relations officer 
to the West Los Angeles division. 

Mr. Hamiltox. On the day of September 27, 1972, what was your 
position at that time ? 

Lieutenant Hickmax'^. I was acting as the commanding officer of the 
West Ivos Angeles division durinq- the month of September. 

Mr. Hamiltox-. Did you attend, in your official capacity, a demon- 
stration in front of the'Centui-y Plaza Hotel on that date? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. On September 27, yes. 

Ml-. Hamiltox. And what was the occasion that prompted this dem- 

Lieutenant Htckman. It Avas a visit by President Nixon to the Cen- 
tury Plaza Hotel for the purpose of attending a fundraising dinner. 

►See pp. 4703-4718. 



Mr. Hamilton. And what was your understanding of the people who 
were organizing and sponsoring this demonstration, their identifica- 
tions ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. It was composed, as I was told, of a coalition 
of several peace groups from various parts of the city of Los Angeles 
and other parts of the country. 

Mr. Hamlton. Were any of the organizers or sponsors persons who 
were representing the McGovern campaign '? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that the McGovern headquarters 
phone banks were being used to drum up support for this demon- 
stration ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. I learned of that approximately 2 or 3 days 
prior to the actual demonstration. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was the source of that information ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Well, I originally received that information 
through intelligence sources in my department and then subsequently 
read about it in the Los Angeles Times. 

Mr. Hamilton. Before the demonstration took place, did you meet 
with the leaders of the demonstration ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. 

Mv. Hamilton. How many times did you meet with them ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Approximately eight times. 

Mr. Hamilton. And with whom did you {)rincipally meet? 

Lieutenant Hickman. With Dr. Donald Kalish, philosophy profes- 
sor from UCLA. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was the purpose of these meetings ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Tlie purpose of the meetings was primarily to 
establish some workable guidelines between the demonstrators and the 
police department as to the conduct of the demonstrators and to estab- 
lish some rapport and some liaison between our two organizations. 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it tluit the meeting was looking toward a 
peaceful demonstration ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you learn at these meetings that the leaders of 
ithe demonstrations planned to have monitors to supervise the demon- 
istrations and to preserve order? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. What was your understanding as to how many moni- 
tors were employed for this purpose ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. I was told by Dr. Kalish that there would be 
approximately 200 monitors. 

Mr. Hamilton. After the demonstration took place, was an after- 
action police report prepared on this event? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. 

INIr, Hamilton. I am going to show you a copy of a documentor 
documents you have provided me. I would like for you to identify 
these, please. 

Would you very quickly identify the documents? 

Lieutenant Hickman. The docun'ient I was iust lianded is an after- 
action report tliat was prepared by Comdr. George Beck, directed to 
Deputy Chief Louis Spore. This report gi\os a brief synopsis of the 
events" which took place prior to and during the demonstration on 


September 27. It gives a breakdown of man-hours expended and total 
cost to tlie department as a result of that demonstration. 

Mv. Hamilton. Now, how numy people participated in this demon- 

Lieutenant Hickman. On the part of the demonstrators our official 
estimate was 3,000. 

Mr. Hamilton. I am going to ask you, Lieutenant Hickman to de- 
scribe in your own words exactly what took place in this demonstra- 
tion, and if you wish to refer to the report that I have given you, please 
do so. 

Will you tell the committee w^hat transpired and I think you should 
make it brief because I understand there is going to be a vote in about 
5 minutes. 

Lieutenant Hickman. I will try. 

The demonstration actually began on the UCLA campus at approxi- 
mately 4 p.m. It began with a rally at the campus. The people who 
rallied there then paraded from the Westwood Village area to the 
Century Plaza Hotel. They arrived at the hotel at approximately 
p.m., and from 6 p.m. until approximately 8 p.m., tnere was a continu- 
ous buildup of the crowd size until it reached a peak at about 
8 p.m. 

The demonstration itself was entirely peaceful or with one or two 
minor exceptions The crowd paraded in front of the hotel, across the 
street from the hotel as the size of the crowd gi^ew larger. Many people 
carried placards, there was a lot of chanting and shouting of slogans. 

There were approximately 200 monitors who were identified by 
green armbands that they wore. My particular job was to function as 
the liaison between the demonstrators and my department, and as such 
I was stationed directly in front of the hotel in uniform and I worked 
with a group of about five peoj^le who were powered to be representa- 
tives of the various peace groups, and they formed sort of a command 
post cadre of demonstrators. 

I dealt ]>rimarily, though, with Dr. Kalish even though the other: 
people were there. : 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, you said there were two minor incidents. 
Would you describe those incidents, please? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes, sir, the first incident occurred when I 
personally observed two or three rocks being thrown at some of our 
police photographers who were standing in the middle of the Century, 
it WRS Avenue of the Stars in front of the hotel, and the rocks were 
thrown from a group of people who were standing on the east side of 
Avenue of the Stars. 

I told Dr. Kalish that unless someone stopped that sort of activity 
we would have to bring in miiformed officers to disperse the group. 
He took about 20 of his monitors across the street, circulated through 
the crowd and asked the people to behave themselves. He then took 
these monitors and surrounded our police photographers in order to 
prevent anyone else from throwing rocks at them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, was there another incident that was provoked 
when certain Nixon supporters came out of the hotel ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. 

Toward the end of the demonstration, there was a large group of 
Young Republicans for Nixon who had staged a rally at the rear of 


the hotel earlier when President Nixon arrived at the hotel by heli- 
copter. Tliey subsequently attended a banquet of some sort at the lower 
level of the liotel. When that broke up, many of these young; people 
came up to the lobby and flowed out onto the front entrance and drive- 
way of the hotel, many of them were carrying; pro-Nixon signs, and 
they began to shout at the demonstrators who, in turn, began to shout 
back, and a large number of people who were standing or seated across 
the street, ran across the street in large numbers apparently just to get 
a better view. 

The first response from the police officers stationed at the hotel 
entrance was to biing out approximately two squads of uniformed 
officers to form a skirmish line in front of the hotel doors. It was 
merely a precautionary measure in the event that anyone should 
attempt to proceed past the driveway and on up to the hotel. 

The young Nixon demonstrators were encouraged to return to the 
hotel — which they did — and we immediately withdrew our uniformed 
officers from the front of the hotel and the crowd then went about its 
business of marching and demonstrating. 

Mr. Hamilton. Toward the end of the demonstration, was there -nn 
incident involving a group from the Vietnam Veterans Against the 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. There were approximately 30 peoi)le 
who were identified by Dr. Kalish as being members of the Vietnam 
veterans. They arrived somewhat late in the demonstration. They 
perliaps more vocal than any other group that was thei-e. Dr. Kalish 

■ had warned me several times during our prior meetings that he could 
take no responsibility for this group. He felt that they were going 
to definitely ti-y to provoke a violence confrontation, if possible. They, 
at the very end of the demonstration when there were only about 200 
or 300 people actually left marching, they took up positions along 

! the guardrail of the hotel and they had broken sticks that they were 
holding their placards on, and they began to rake the sticks across 

; the steel guardrail, and continued to chant for a long period of time. 

At about midnight, one squad of officers were brought out to simply 

go along the guardrail and ask these individuals to leave, and to cease 

'; their noisemaking, and they all complied with it. no pi'ol)lem. After 

I that point, the entire demonstration dispersed and we disbanded our 

;command post. 

I Mr. Hamilton. Lieutenant, during the demonstration, how many 
arrests were made ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. There were a total of three arrests made. 
Mr. Hamilton. What were these arrests for? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Two of the arrests were made by the Los 
Angeles Police Department, one for interfering with a police officer, 
and another one. I believe, was for ]X)Ssession of drugs. The third 
arrest, which was for possession of marihuana, was made by the Secret 
Service in the hotel. 

Mr. Hamilton, "\^^lat would be your overall characterization of the 
demonstration? Would you characterize it as a peaceful demonstra- 

; tion ? 

1 Lieutenant Hickman. Yes, sir. 

I INIr. Hamilton. ISIr. Patrick Buchanan, in his testimony before this 
committee, described the Century Plaza incident as an example of, 


and I am quoting now, "Near- violent demonstrations denying the 
President of the United States a right to speak." 

Was this demonstration near violent ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir. 

]Mr. Hamilton. To your knowledge, did the demonstration deny the 
President a right to speak? 

Lieutenant Htck^tnn. No, sir. It was my understanding that the 
program, as scheduled, went off without any problems. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, to change the subject, Lieutenant, are you 
aware that, on September 17, 1972, a Nixon campaign office located, 
on Fairfax Avenue in Hollywood suffered some fire damage? i 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes; I believe it was September 18, however. ' 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you personally investigate this incident ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Have you reviewed the police reports on this 
incident ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. I am going to show you a copy of various police 
reports which you have pix)vided to me, and I would like for you to jj 
identify these reports. 

Lieutenant Hickjlvn. I have before me several Los Angeles Police 
Department reports, the first of which is a death report. The reference 
number on all of these reports is 72-651638. This death report is for an 
individual by the name of Jenkins, David William. There is a fol- 
lowup report to that death report, a copy of the property receipt. The 
next report is a Los Angeles Police Department burglary report, the 
victim in this case being the Star City Distributors at 449 North Fair- 
fax Avenue in Los Angeles. 

There are three pages of narrative attached to this report. There is 
then a followup report to this burglary, listing the name of the de- 
ceased as well as two other suspects who were subsequently arrested 
as a result of this incident. 

There is a second followup report to this burglary listing several 
other victims, one of which is the Democrats for Nixon headquarters 
located at the same address. 

There is a list of property that was taken in this burglary from the 
various victims. Then there are a total of three Los Angeles Police 
Department property reports listing various items of i)ioperty that 
were subsequently recovered and booked into Ix>s Angeles Police De- 
partment custody. 

Mr. Hamilton. Lieutenant, I would like to ask you to read brief 
portions of these reports into the record, and I would'like to focus your 
attention first on the burglaiy report dated September 18, 1972, re- 
garding the break-in at the Star City Distributoi-s. I would also like 
to ask you to read the narrative that is found at page 3 of this report, 
and I would appreciate it if you would translate the abbreviations for 
us because I am not sure that they are all clear. 

Lieutenant Hickman. Very well. Beginning on page 3 : 

The reiwrtiiiR jxTson stated he locked and secured his building at 1330 hours 
on September IG, 1972. At 0240 hours officer received a radio call "Arson suspects 
just left from 4r>0 North Fairfax, susiKK-ts were 5 male negroes last seen running 
from the location towards Oakwood Avenue." Officers arrived and observed the 
Fire Department putting out a fire. Officers check the area for the suspeots but 
they were gone on arrival. 


The officers investigation revealed that unknown suspects using a possible pry 
tool pried the hasp off. Suspects entered and pried the hasp from a small door 
directly to tlie rear of the building. They entered and ransacked that portion of 
the building and removed unknown items. Suspects tlien went back into the main 
part of tlie building, ransacked two desks and then removed the telephones by dis- 
connecting them. Suspects then went to work in the front of the building. Suspects 
then using an unknown tool punched a hole in the face of a timeclock. The time 
when the clock was stopped is 0144 hours, September 18, 1972. Suspects then 
went all the way to the front of the business, broke open a coke machine and 
removed an unknown amount of U.S. coins. Suspects thi'U attempted to ar.son this 
section with a magazine but only the magazine burned. Suspects then using a 
possible tire iron from a vehicle pried a board away from the wall and entered 
the other half of the building that was being rented by the Nixon for President 
Committee. Suspects then went on the rear upstairs portion of the building and 
set a fire. Suspects then left the building by the point of entry. 

Mr. Hamilton. Lieutenant, I would now like to focus your attention 
on the followup report on this burglary, dated November 18, 1972, and 
ask you to read the iiai'rative that is contained on page 1. 

Lieutenant Hickman. All right. "The above three subjects," and I 
should dehne subjects here as the term we use to refer to juveniles as op- 
posed to suspects that we use to define adults. 

The above three subjects forced entry into the Star City Distributors, 449 
North Fairfax and committed burglary and malmischief. During the commis- 
sion of said burglary subject number one, Jenkins, started a fire in the busi- 
ness office to cover up fingerprints being obtained. Subject one, Jenkins, appar- 
ently got caught in the fire and perished before the Fire Department could put 
the fire out. Investigating officer called to the scene had the deceased subject 
identified at the LA County Morgue by latent prints and upon identification 
started checking friends and associates for other suspects. During said in- 
vestigation investigating officer identified two others involved, ari'ested them 
and received a full confession. Investigating officer made a full recovery of prop- 
erty taken from the Star City Distributors. Petitions were filed on subjects one 
and two for murder, arson and burglary. The crime was cleared by arrest. 

Mr. Hamilton. What does the report indicate that was taken from 
the Nixon offices '^ 

Lieutenant Hickman. The only thing that was reported by the repre- 
sentati^■e from the Nixon offices was $25 in miscellaneous U.S. currency. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Haldeman, before this committee, indicated 
the Hollywood Nixon office was '"blown up by a bomb." Is there any 
indication in the report that a bomb was exploded at the offices as Mr. 
Haldeman testified 'i 

Lieutenant PIickman. No, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I would 
like to ask that the documents that Lieutenant Hickman has testified 
from be entered into the record at this time. 

Senator Erven. Without objection, that will be done. They will be 
received as exhibits and appropriately numbered as such. 

[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 239 and 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. How many man-hours, police man-hours, were 
expended on assuring that the demonstration would be peaceful? 

Lieutenant Hickman. According to our operation report, a total 
of 4,212 man-hours. 

Mr. Thompson. How many policemen would 4,212 man-hours 
involve ? 

*See pp. 4719-4727. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 


Lieutenant Hickman. The sum total of that, I believe, was 401 sworn 
officei-s and 24 civilians for a total of 425 police department personnel. 

Mr. Tho:mps()X. Could you make an evaluation beforehand as to the 
possibilities or potential for violent confrontation ? 

Lieutenant PIickman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompsox. What was your evaluation ? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. My evaluation after having several meetings 
with the demonstrators, was that there was a good likelihood we would 
experience a peaceful demonstration. However, we were also prepared 
in the event that things should escalate and not be peaceful. 

Mr. Thompsox. There is a report here signed by G. N. Beck, com- 
manding officer, which indicates that this event had the potential of 
becoming a major confrontation. Would that be correct? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. Yes, sir; the potential was certainly there. 

INIr. Thompsox. Were you present at the 1967 demonstration? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. Yes, sir. 

IMr. Thompsox. Could you describe it ? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. Yes, sir; I would have to say that was a 
violent demonstration. 

Mr. Thompsox. Could you be a little more specific? Was there de- 
struction of property involved ? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. There was, to my knowledge, no real destruc- 
tion of property, not to an extent at any rate. There was — across the 
street from the hotel where the majority of the people congregated, 
some 10,000 — was at that time just a large vacant field, today that 
area is a large entertainment center, so that when the officers in 1967 
movxd forward to make arrests the i)eople were allowed to disperse 
through large vacant fields and then on to the various streets so there 
was no real danger of any large amount of property being damaged 
and to my knowledge there was no large amount of property damage. 

Mr. Thompsox'. In what way was it violent? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. Well, it was violent from the stand]:)oint 
there were numerous attacks on police officers on the part of demon- 
strator^ there were rocks being hurled and other objects such as bot- 
tles and sticks. There were, during the arrests processes that took 
place later on, numerous physical confrontations between police of- 
ficers and demonstrators. 

Mr. Thompsox. Did any of the people wlio were in charge of this 
demonstration m 1972 participate in the 1967 event also, so far as you 
know ? 

Lieutenant Hickmax. You are speaking about part of the demon- 
stratoi-s themselves? 

Mr. Thompsox. Yes. 

Lieutenant Hickmax. Professor Kalish takes credit for being one 
of the prime movers behind the 1967 demonstration and I do recall 
his name being mentioned ))rominently during that period of time, 
and he did indicate to me that there would be many peo])le present 
at the 1972 demonstration who were there in 1967. and he also advised 
me that it was certainly not theii- wishes to rejoeat 1967. 

Mr. Thompsox. Did yon di?cuss with Dr. Kalish whether or not 
there was any McGovern support or assistance in the 1972 demon- 
stration ? 


Lieutenant Hickman. I never solicited him for that sort of infor- 
mation. He did vohuiteer on many occasions during our conversations 
that this demonstration was not per so pro-^NIcGovern. He indicated 
that many of the pcoj^le there woukl naturally be in favor of Mc- 
Govern over Xixon, but they did not want to do anything in this dem- 
onstration that wovdd be counterproductive to ]McGovern's efforts, 
and he voiced that concern many times. He pointed out that the issue, 
stop the war and stop Nixon, would, in the minds of many people, be 
associated with ]\Ir. McGovern. 

Mr. Thompson. Did he express the idea that if that turned out to 
be a violent demonstration it might hurt Mr. McGovern politically I 

Lieutenant Hickman. Most definitely. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you recall how many man-hours were involved 
or how many officers were involved in trying to control the 1967 

Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir; I have no access to that information 
at this time. 

Mr. Thompson. You were present — would you say there were more 
or less police officers involved in the 1972 demonstration? 

Lieutenant Hickman. I would say in 1967 there were probably more 
police officers. Certainly a more active role. 

IMr. Thompson. Why would that be? 

Lieutenant Hickman. Well, because of the violent nature of the 
demonstration. All of our intelligence information during 1967 

Mr. Thompson. You are talking about the officers who came on the 
scene. I assume you are including some of them after it became vio- 

Lieutenant Hickman. We had a large number of officers present in 
1967 at the outset because we had every reason to believe it was going 
to be a violent confrontation. 

All the intelligence information indicated that. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. I have no further questions, thank you. 

Senator Ervin. Was there anything to indicate that this violent 
burglary in the Nixon headquarters, was anything other than just an 
ordinary run of the mill burglaiy ? 

Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Was there anything indicating that anylx)dy con- 
nected with the political campaign of anybody had anything to do 
with it? 

Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. 

I want to thank you, and I am sorry I have interrupted your vaca- 
tion and I hope you will enjoy the rest of it. 

Lieutenant Hickman. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :10 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 11, 1973.] 


U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee ox 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

W ashlngto'ii , D .C . 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m. in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chair- 

Present: Senators Ervin, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, Gurney, and 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D. 
Thompson, minority counsel ; Rufus L. Edmisten, deput3' chief coun- 
sel ; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assist- 
ant chief counsels; Marc Lackritz, James C. Moore, Ronald D. Ro- 
tunda, "\y. Dennis Summers, and Barry Schocliet, assistant majority 
counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Howard S. Lieben- 
good, ^Michael J. ]Madigan, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority 
counsels; Jed Johnson, investigator; Pauline O. Dement, research as- 
sistant; Eiler Ravnliolt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, office 
of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A. 
Searle Field, assistant to Senator AVeicker; and Michael Flanigan, 
assistant publications clerk. 

Senator Baker [presiding]. The committee will come to order. The 
chairman was called away on official business and asked me to recon- 
A'ene the hearing and proceed. He will be able to rejoin us later in the 
morning, I understand. 

Would counsel call the first witness ? 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Richard Stearns. 

Senator Baker. Stand and be sworn, please. Would you hold up 
your right hand ? Do you swear the testimony you are about to give 
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes, I do. 

Senator Baker. You may be seated ; counsel will proceed. 

Mr. Dash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant 
chief counsel, will initiate the questioning of tliis witness. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Stearns, do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Elliott. John M. Elliott of the Philadelphia bar. 

Mr. Mannino. Edward F. Mannino. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Stearns, do you have a statement you would like 
to read? Would you go ahead ancl proceed to read that, please? 


^Ir. Stearns. Thank voii vei'v much. 

INIr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would have ap- 
preciated the elementary courtesy of reasonable notice in advance of 



this appearance because I would have preferred to prepare a com- 
prehensive statement for the committee. The subject you have been 
charged to examine is critical, and it deserves the best reflection and 
insight any witness can offer. 

Mr. Buchanan complained that this was difficult, despite having all 
the resources of the White House at his disposal, because he was given 
only 6 days to prepare. But as at least some of 3'ou are aware, I was 
notified of this request to appear less than 24 hours ago, in the course 
of an oral presentation to one of the classes at Harvard Law School 
where I am a student. 

In recent weeks, the press has reported that some of the committee 
staff has been engaged in a fishing expedition for a partisan purpose — 
to absolve the outrages of the most corrupt Presidential campaign in 
American history by finding something — anything — no matter how 
insubstantial, in order to place blame on a Democratic campaign which 
sought honestly and decently to provide a different kind of national 

Yesterday a hired liar for CREP, a self-serving Republican 
expert on so-called Democratic dirty tricks, went so far as to defame 
the memory of Senator Robert Kennedy by implying that Senator 
Kennedy was the inspiration for his contemptible conduct. 

It is perhaps revealing that no one on this committee had to strain 
at figuring out who among the Nixon campaign to subpena, or what 
questions to ask them. The scandal there was pervasive. The abuses 
screamed for attention and correction. Xothing could any longer con- 
ceal the crimes and the co\'erups. The problem was not whether there 
was an excuse to start an investigation, but whether there was any 
way to end it. 

Xow, some of those who have been forced at last to face the beam in 
one party's eye are searching to find a mote in the other party's eye. 

This is not the appropriate exercise of a power that was supposed 
to reach beyond partisanship in order to renew the principles we all 
profess. ]More than that, it is a profound disservice. 

First, it is a disservice to the facts. The ]\IcGovern campaign was 
founded not on dirty tricks, but on the truth. In 1972 we made mis- 
takes, but we did not commit crimes. Let me list some of the things we 
did not do. We did not taj^ any telephones. We did not burgle any of- 
fices. We did not hire any demonsti-ators. We did not employ any spies. 
We did not refuse — indeed, we welcomed the opportunity — to disclose 
the sources of our financing. We never solicited, we never took — and we 
never expected — ^an illegal corporate contribution. We never com- 
mitted perjury, or asked anyone to commit perjury for us. We never 
manipulated or debased the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, or the 
Justice Department. We nevei- considered a firebombing or the enlist- 
ment of prostitutes to compromise the ojijwsition or anvone else, or 
even kidnaping those who saw the world differenth' than we did. 
We were beaten, but we were not dishonored. And the attempt to find 
fault where there is none, to lay blame where it does not belong, to 
whitewash the guilty by blackening the innocent, is a pathetic piece 
of political gamesmanship. 

And let me tell you some of the things we did do. We were honest 
about who was paying for our campaign and about the principles and 
programs for which we stood. We were open and frank with the press 


and tlie American people. We invited the scrutiny of everyone, at times 
to our- disadvantage — and I welcome snch scrutiny now ; but not the in- 
nuendoes and slanders which are the last refuge of those who cannot 
acquit themselves except by accusing others. I believe that when this 
committee's work is done, when the last witness has been heard and the 
final recommendations are written, you will call for the kind of honest 
and decent politics George jNIcGovern practiced in 1972. 

Second, unfounded attacks on Democratic integrity are a disservice 
to the Republican Party. It is not necessary for Republicans to pix)ve 
that Democrats are just as bad. For the truth is that most people in 
both parties have held to high standards of conduct. Republicans and 
Democrats alike have waged fair fights in most campaigns at every 
level. Indeed, most of those who thought last year the President's re- 
election was right did nothing in that cause which any of us would 
regard as wrong. They voted to reelect the President, not to bug the 
Democratic National Committee. 

Finally, it is a disservice to the Nation to imply that all politics is 
as bad as a few men made it in 1072. I have not been long in politics — 
only 5 years; but I have met many people and politicians from the 
grassroots to the Senate, in both parties, whom I proudly call my 
friends and who, I believe, give constant witness to the ideals of the 
American system. This committee at its best exemplifies politics at its 
best. And the worst disservice now would be to convince the Nation 
that this cannot be — that the political process is inevitably degraded 
and unworthy. For that does not save Republicans or the administra- 
tion. It not only slanders Democrats, it unjustifiably strains the faith 
of the American people in the American system. 

Mr. Chairman, in these last months, you have heard — and all of us 
have seen — a record of sabotage and slander unprecedented in Ameri- 
can history. I experienced personally some of that slander last year. 
The facts are different from the fiction which was widely promoted. 

In 1967, I signed a newspaper appeal which endorsed the Middle 
East policy that was subsequently supported by the ITnited States 
and adojited by the United Nations. At that time, I favored wdiat 
the Nixon administration once hailed as an evenhanded policy in the 
Middle East. I consistently advocated that policy, in a responsible 
way, until the outbreak of Arab terrorism and the escalation of Soviet 
i intervention convinced me that I was wrong. My earlier position was 
no secreit. It was publicly expressed at the time, as was my current 
position during the 1972 campaign. 

Despite that, the most outlandish and outrageous smeare were 
spaM'ued and perpetuated by the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi- 
dent. For example, the committee's publicist, Mr. Devan L. Shumway, 
spread a rumor among the press tliat I had been a guerrilla leader 
in Al Fatah. It hardly merited the denial it deserved, but it was dan- 
gerous and vicious slander. Finally, I called my friend Patrick Bu- 
chanan, and Mr. Shumway, at least, was apparently restrained. 

Yet, what I resented most was not the unfounded attack on me, but 
the implication that views I never held, in years already ])ast, 
were the views of George McGovem in 1972. Certainly Senator Mc- 
Govern's ])Osition was well and widely stated. Yet CREP wanted to 
take the views they had created for me and make them his. By the 
same logic, we could conclude that Mr. Colson's alleged plan for fire- 

4568 I 

bombing the Brookings Institution proved that President Nixon was 1 
the new mad bomber. I tliink we have exi)erienced too much of such «, 
logic. AVe have heard too many unscrupulous smears. We have seen \ 
too often men who should have served their country but shamed it [ 
instead. I 

We need no more forged cables, no more inoperative coverups, no ! 
more smears against good and decent citizens — among them an as- | 
sassinated President^ — who seek only to do what they believe is right j 
for their country — whethei- they are Democrats like Senator Hum- | 
phrey, who was* accused of sexual misconduct, or Republicans like i 
Senator Weicker, who was accused of cam):)aign financing abuses. \ 

In my view, we need instead to remember the words of Edmund j 
Burke : I 

I am aware that our age is not everything we wish it to be, but I am convinced 
that the only means of checl^ing its degeneracy is to concur heartily in whatever 
is best in our times. 

For me, in 1972, George McGovern represented what was best for j 
our times. Not all of you agreed, and obviously millions of voters 
disagreed. But at least I am confident of this much — ^that the Mc- 
Govern campaign kept faith with what is best in the American politi- 
cal tradition. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Thank you, IVIr. Stearns. 

Mr. Stearns, you indicated in this statement some surprise about 
being called, and I would like to set the record straight on that, if I 

Our records reflect that you were fii"st interviewed at the request 
of the majority staff, Mr. INIoore and Mr. Rowe; and also Mr. Shure 
of the minoritv staff was present, on September 18 of this year, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Stearns. That is true. 

Mr. Lexzner. And you were served at that time with a subpena, a 
copy of which I have here, to produce certain documents, is that also 
correct ? 

Mr. Stearxs. No ; I was not served with a subpena at that time. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lenzner, if I may, so the record is clear on this, 
Mr. Stearns appeared in executive session on October 3 at which time 
he Avas tendered a subnena when he was sworn in. He had conversations! 
with two members of yoni- legal staff prior to that time with no sub- 
pena tendered until he was here last week for the October 3 hearing 
in executive s^ession. At that time he was examined and asked to pro- 
duce his analysis of Senator Muskie's campaign — Senator Muskie's 
voting record, which was supplied to the committee. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I understand that. But I have here a subpena and I 
don't want to belabor this. The return is dated September IS: Mr. 
Moore signed it and indicated that he served it on the 18th of 

Mr. Elliott. That was never served. 

]\rr. Stearxs. T was served two separate subpenas; the first occasion 
was when I concluded the executive hearing and I accepted it. I was 
then served a second subpena at my interview in the executive commit- 
tee on October 3. 

Mr. Lexzxer. So you were served a subpena prior to October 3 ? 

Mr. Stearxs. Yes. 


Mr. Lexzner. And on October 3 you were sworn in by Senator 
Inonye and you answered questions on that occasion also ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lexzner. And between the September 18 and the October 3 
interviews you also, as I understand it, called one of your former stafi 
aides to discuss the incidents you were being interA'iewed on. 

Mr. Stearns. Yes; I was infoi'med by the coinisel who asked me to 
appear at the original session that this was an area of interest to the 

Mr. Lenzner. But you were on some notice then going back to 
September 1? 

Mr. Stearns. I am not objecting 

Mr. Lenzner. To the possibility you would appear here — right? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes: I am not objecting to appearing before the com- 
mittee. I am objecting to appearing on what was originally 2 hours' 
notice which my counsel extended to 16 hours. I was not sure the 
committee was ever going to have me appear or not. I have not seen my 
name on the list o ^ witnesses in the last 2 or 3 days. 

Mr. Lenzner. All right. 

Now, Mr. Stearns, as 1 understand it you were with Senator Mc- 
Govern's campaign prior to the convention and after the convention. 
What was your specific assignment and position after the convention? 

Mr. Stearns. Prior to the convention 1 was initially director of 
research and then director of the Senator's campaign in the States 
which did not hold Presidential primaries. After the convention, there 
was a general reorganization of the campaign and I was assigned as 
director of what was called the western region which included the 19 
States west of the Mississippi Eiver. This is a position which I 
functionally occupied until approximately the end of Se):)tember, at 
which time my attention shifted primarily to the campaign in 

Mr. Lenzner. And was California one of the States that you were 
responsible for after the convention for that period of time? 

Mr. Stearns. California is among the States west of the Mississippi 
River ; yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, in September of 1972, you did make a trip to 
''. California. Prior to that trip, were you aware that there was a prob- 
lem in the California campaign with regard to some peace groups? 

iNIr. Stearns. Xo; I was not aware there was a problem in the cam- 
paign with regard to peace groups. I was aware there was a problem 
in the internal administration of the campaign. My reason for being 
in California on that day was an attempt to negotiate — in fact, an at- 
; tempt to recruit a new campaign director for the southern California 
I operation. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who was the campaign director at that time? 

Mr. Stearns. Mr. Fred Taugher. 

Mr. Lenzner. Prior to tlie time you went to California, however, did 
you not receive a petition from people involved in Senator McGovern's 
; campaign raising certain issues about the campaign ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes ; but to the best of my recollection, that petition 
mentioned nothing about a peace group. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did it phrase implications in your mind that there was 

I [concern over Avhether Senator McGovern and the campaign were ad- 

I I hering to a strong policy on Vietnam and in the peace area? 


ISIr. Stearxs. Xo; it did not. The petition related to internal — in 
fact, most of it, as I recall, dealt with difficulties in the literature- 
distribution system ; mostly complaints about the administrative man- 
ner in which the campaign was bein<r conducted. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yesterday, you were interviewed, and you indicated 
at that time that it raised questions about the grassroots quality of the 
campaign. You indicated also, I believe, that that indicated to you that 
there was some concern about the strength of commitment for peace in 
the campaign. 

Mr. Searxs. Xo; I believe that you construed that as one of the 
things that grassroots might mean. One can speculate as to what grass- 
roots might suggest on any number of issues. That could be one of 
them. But I am sure that was not speculation that I made at the time. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Our recollection differs on that. 

"When you arrived in California, were you briefed by anybody in the 
campaign concerning problems with the peace groups and the 

i\Ir. Stearxs. Xo ; not on my arrival. Again, let me make perfectly 
clear that my reason for being in California dealt with an internal ad- 
ministrative problem within the campaign organization. There was no 
other purpose for my trip there. ]My only objective was to interview a 
gentleman whom I was attempting to recruit, and did recruit even- 
tually, as a new southern California campaign director. The only sug- 
gestion — well, that really answers the question, I think. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did there come a time when you were out there that 
you did enter into discussions with people about a possible demonstra- 
tion with these groups ? 

Mr. Stearxs. Yes, there was. As I recall, this was a very quick trip 
to California. By that time, I Avas somewhat occupied with other mat- 
ters and hoped to settle the internal difficulties in the campaign as 
quickly as I could. 

As one of the courtesies that I did, as I did in most States that I 
A'isited, I dropped by the Los Angeles — I am sorry, the southern 
California headquarters, which were on Wilshire Boulevard in Los 
Angeles. At that time my liaison with the California campaign asked 
if, for morale purposes, I would tour through the offices and shake 
hands with the campaign workers who were there. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you have a discussion at that time about a possible 
demonstration coming up ? 

Mr. Stearxs. In the course of that tour of the headquarters, I met 
a lady who was apparently involved in or had attended the organizing 
meetincf of the demonstration that vou are referring to. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. And who was that ? 

Mr. S'reARxs. "Well. I do not recall her name. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Who introduced you to her? 

Mr. Stearxs. Mrs. Jo Seidita, the California national committee- 

Mr. Lexzxer. '\^nio was present at that conversation ? 

Mr. Stearxs. To the best of my recollection — is this the conversa- 
tion with Jo Seidita or the conversation regarding the demonstration? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Is tliere a difference ? 

Mv. Stearxs. Thej-e was. I mot Jo Seidita first, and then I met the 
woman whose name I don't recall. 


Mr. Lexzner. Wl^at discussion did you have vcith. Seidita ? 

Mr. Stearns. When I met hei-, we conversed for a minute about the 
campaipi. She asked if I would then meet this woman. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did she indicate to you why she wanted you to meet 
this other individual ? 

Mr. Stearxs. I don't recall that she did ; no. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yesterday, I believe, you indicated that you thought 
you got a quick briefing from her as to why she wanted you to meet 
this other individual, and that was because of the other person's con- 
cern over the commitment of the campaign for the peace movement. 

Mr. Stearxs. No; I think your recollection of our conversation 
yesterday is faulty. I said that Barbara MacKenzie, who was conduct- 
ing my tour through the headquarters, had told me that she thought 
Mrs. Seidita had someone she wanted me to meet, who was involved in 
some liaison capacity with the peace movement. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did MacKenzie indicate that there was some concern 
over the peace movement ? 

Mr. Stearns. I don't think so ; no. 

Mr. Lenzner. What conversation did you have finally with Seidita 
and the other individual concerning the possible demonstration? 

Mr. Stearns. Now, are you asking for my best recollection of what 
occurred at this ? 

Mr. Lenzner. That is correct. 

Mr. Stearns. My best recollection is that I was introduced to this 
other woman. She then explained to me that a coalition of peace 
groups in Los Angeles was organizing a demonstration, a peacefvd as- 
sembly, to coincide with the President's address, I believe on the 27th 
of September, at the Century Plaza Hotel. To the best of my recollec- 
tion, this is the first occasion on which I was even aware that the 
President planned a trip to the Century Plaza Kotel in Los Angeles 
at that time. I asked her the normal sort of courteous questions that 
you ask when you fill in the role of a visiting dignitary ^ — asked her 
about the character of the demonstration. I am sure I asked her how 
many people they expected. I might have even asked her where the 
Century Plaza Hotel was, since I had no idea — and still don't — 
where it was. 

She then asked me if I had any objection to members of the Mc- 
Govern campaign staff attending the demonstration. I said "No," that 
no one sacrificed any first amendment right when they went to work 
for a Presidential candidate; that if they chose as a matter of con- 
science to participate, to attend, I had no objection to that. That is my 
recollection of the conversation. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember who else was present ? 

Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, Mrs. Seidita was 
present; this lady I was in discussion with was present; my liaison 
' for southern California, Barbara MacKenzie, was present, and I was 
present, of course. 

Mr. Lenzner. You don't recall Fred Taugher being there ? 

Mr. Stearns. I do not recall Fred Taugher being present there. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did this other individual, in your presence, request 
the campaign to provide any assistance for the demonstration ? 

Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, no. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did this other individual indicate that she and others 
were concerned about the commitment of the campaign to the peace 
movement ? 

Mr. Stearns. I don't recall that being specifically said ; no. 

Mr. Lenzner. Or that the McGovern campaign was giving up the 
peace issue? 

Mr. Stearns. I don't think she made a statement to that effect ; no. 

Mr. Lenzner. Let me read and see if this refreshes your recollection 
from your executive session of October 3, 1973. Mr. Liebengood asked 
you, concerning this conversation : "What did they ask you ?" 

And you answered, "Well, as I understand the circumstances, this 
lady was" — this is at page 49 if you have a copy. 

Mr. Manning. Counsel, we don't. We requested one. 

Mr. P^LLioTT. We requested a copy and were told we would be sup- 
plied one 

Mr. Lenzner. Page 49. [Reading :] 

Mr. Stearns. Well, as I understood the circumstances, that this lady was very 
interested in what you might call the peace movement in Los Angeles and she 
was concerned that the McGovern campaign was giving up the issue of peace 
in the fall election. I realize this is hard to imagine, but nonetheless, this was 
her concern. 

Now, was that expressed during that meeting ? 

Mr. Stearns. I said I don't specifically recall it being. It may well 
have been. I don't recall it being expressed. There are any number 
of opportunities I would have had to come across this. This might be 
my speculation as to why she was interested in making a presention on 
the demonstration. Barbara MacKenzie may have suggested it to me; 
Jo Seidita may have suggested it to me. I don't see that it is a particu- 
larly surprising conclusion. 

Mr. Lenzner. But that was your understanding when you testified 
under oath on October 3. 

Mr. Manning. I think it should be clear on page 49 of this trans- 
script that what Mr. Stearns is talking about is not in the context of 
what Mrs. Seidita said to him but rather what his understanding was. 

You quoted part of it. Let's quote the whole thing, starting at line 

Well, as I understand the circum.stances. that this lady was very interested in 
wliat you might call the peace movement in Los Angeles and she was concerned 
that the McGovern campaign was giving up the issue of peace. 

This is in the context of what he was told. I think your question was 
what was Mrs. Seidita telling him. 

Mr. Lenzner. I read that i)art of it, but the prior pages indicate 
that Mr. Liebengood was asking about the meeting — that prior ques- 
tions indicated he was asking questions about who this other individual 
was that Mr. Stearns had met with. 

The prior question is : "And what did they ask you ?" 

This is his response to that question: "What did she ask jou?'' 

Mr. Elliott. And he answered, "As I understood the circumstances," 
if you will read on nage 13, as Mi-. Mannino pointed out. 

Mr. Lenzner. Exactly. And that is his answer to that question. 

By the wav. what was the policy of the canq)aign at that time as tOj 
using campaign re^■ourcos for demonsti'ations? 

Mr. Stearns. I think the policy of the campaign toward demonstra- 


Mr. Lexzxer. Using resources to aid demonstrations ? 

Mr. Stearns. I think as a general policy, we discouraged it. I think 
everyone knew the Senator's view of demonstrations. As I recall, as 
early in the campaign as 1970, he made clear that he did not see that 
violent demonstrations served the principles or issues in which he 
strongly believed. I think that was the policy that was generally under- 
stood by everyone in the campaign. 

I should point out, however, that we are talking now about a consti- 
tutionally protected right that people have. But I would say that, 
siJecitically, it was not a policy to lend resources to demonstrations — ■ 
certainly never a policy to organize a demonstration. 

Mr. Lenzner. I think you also indicated yesterday that there was 
some concern over the political impact that might result if the cam- 
paign was linked to a demonstration, violent or nonviolent. 

Mr. Stearns. I think that would occur to anyone in the tactical sit- 
uation. Yes, the Committee To Re-P^lect the President was doing 
every'thing it could to paint George McGovern as an irresi~)onsible, 
violence-prone, drug-addicted fiend. Xaturally, we didn't want to do 
anything to reinforce any impression, any false impression, that was in 
the public's mind about the Senator; and clearly, being linked to a 
violent demonstration couldn't possibly serve the best interests of our 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you inquire from any of the individuals during 
that discussion as to what groups were going to participate in the 
demonstration ? 

Mr. Stearns. Xo ; I didn't. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you issue any instructions to insure that the cam- 
paign would not provide resources to assist in that demonstration? 

Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, I didn't. 

Mr. Lenzner. You have discussed, as I think you have indicated to 
us — between your first interview on September 18 and your- executive 
session on October 3, you did discuss this meeting with Mrs. Mac- 
Kenzie ; is that correct 'I 

Mr. Stearns. That is true. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall now her recollection as she told it to 
you of what happened at that meeting ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes; I think my description of what her recollection 
. was is clear in the record from both the executive session and the inter- 
view. The first time I discussed it with her, her best recollection — I 
think if you are interested in her best recollection she is the one to 
ask for it. 

Mr. Lenzner. "We have talked to her. 

Mr. Stearns. Right. Her best recollection at first was that, no, the 
issue of campaign resources did not come up at the meeting. I asked 
her again to recount her recollection before I came to the interview. I 
called her to tell her that the issue was that I had been instructed to 
inform her by counsel that I had used her name. She said then that she 
had thought about it further and thought that perhaps a question 
about the telephone bank may have been brought up during that 
meeting, but if it was, she is sure that I said "No.'' 

Now, that is my recollection of her recollection. 

Mr. Lenzner. "I understand that, but did she also tell you that she 
had advised you, prior to the discussions with this individual you met 


in September, tluit they were going to ask you about the demonstration 
and the use of resources and she advised you to sidestep that issue ? 

Did .«he not also say that to you ? 

Mr. Stearns. She may have^ — the recollections are now so far re- 

]\Ir. Lenzxer. That is what you said under oath on October -3. 

Mr. Stearxs. Well, that must have been my recollection then ; yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Counsel, I realize that you are not constrained by the 
hearsay rule here, but I would ask you respectfully to break your ques- 
tions down into answerable questions. You are asking multiple ques- 
tions that are difficult to answer. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, did she advise you prior to the time you met 
with this group out there that you were going to be asked about the use 
of resources for this demonstration ? 

Mr. Stearns. If I said that is what I recalled from the conversation 
I had had wnth her prior to the executive committee meeting, and that 
is what I said on October 8, that must have been my best recollection at 
the time; yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you I'ecall now that that is what happened prior to 
the time you met with this other individual ? 

Mr. Stearns. No; I do not think I would have recalled that or I 
would not have asked her in the fii'st place for her recollection. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would it not seem natural, Mr. Stearns, if they were 
discussing a demonstration with you, if they also were seeking to use 
the resources of the campaign, they would Iiave sought that aid from 
you ? 

Mr. St]:arns. No; because I think you have to go back to a funda- 
mental understanding about the McGovern campaign. Our campaign 
was one which was premised on the autonomy of each local State or- 
ganization. Now, in California, for all effective purposes, there were 
two State organizations: one Avhich ran the campaign in the South, 
another which ran the campaign in the North. I did not have admin- 
istrative authority within the campaign; I certainly had authority 
over general issues, general policy, at least up to the time I was in- 
volved with the Western States — that is, up to the end of September. 
I certainly had a dignitary's capacity everywhere I went. I was ini- 
tially responsible for organizing and recruiting the cami^aign staff to 
whom authority was given to manage the campaign. But I do not think 
at any time in any visit that I ever made to any one of our campaign 
headquarters in any of those 19 States I would have ever presumed to 
take the authority or presume that I had the authority to make admin- 
istrative decisions about tho dis})0sal of equipment or material within a 

Our camj^aign just did not operate that way. We dealt largely with 
fiercely independent volunteer workers or paid workers whose in- 
terest — ours Avas just not as well disciplined an organization as the 
CREP's was. 

Ml'. Lenzner. Are you suggesting now, though, that if you were 
present during the discussion where it was indicated that action was 
going to be taken by a local campaign headquarters, it was clearly 
against the policy of Seiuitor McGovorn, clearly against the policy 
of the headquarters office, was going to cause tremendous possible 
political damage to the campaign, that you would not have taken any 
steps to stop that action ? 


Mr. Stearxs. This is a highly — wlmt incident are you talking about? 
This is a highly speculative question. I do not recall anyone proposing 
to nie that we were going to take any steps that were going to cause 
violent damage to the campaign, that were going to violently break 
any policy. You are suggesting something to me that just did not 
happen in the campaign. 

Mr. Lexzner. Mr. Taugher testified yesterday that you were present 
at a discussion when the use of campaign resources was discussed, and 
specifically, the phone banks were going to be used to assist in this 
demonstration. If that had happened, if there had been violence in that 
demonstration, that could have caused, I take it, some damage to the 
campaign, that it would have been tied, as it was tied, to the McGovern 
, campaign headquarters. 

Mr. Stearns. Let me say this. I have lost count of the number of 
"ifs" in your question. I do not recall any of these violent 

Mr. Lexzxer. You asked me to give you an example. I just gave 
you an example based on Mr. Taugher's testimony yesterday. 

Mr. Stearxs. JNIr. Taugher has given you his best recollection ; I have 
given you my best recollection. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. I am saying, in that specific instance, if Mr. Taugher's 
recollection is correct. Are you saying now if you had been there, you 
i would not have taken any steps to stop the use of those resources? 

Mr. Stearxs. I was never in any situation where, to the best of my 
recollection, that was posed. 

INIr. Lexzxer. And you do not want to answer it now ? 

Mr. Stearxs. You are talking about a completely hypothetical cir- 
cumstance that I was not confronted with. I do not think my role here 
as a witness is to be led into hypotheses of what could have hapjDened. 
The pui'pose of the committee is to 

]\Ir. Lenzxer. And Mrs. MacKenzie's testimony is that you were 
present at that discussion, and ]\Ir. Taugher testified that you were 

]\Ir. Stearx's. I am not testifying to Mr. Taugher's recollection. I am 
lonly recollecting Mrs. ]MacKenzie's recollection. I am only testifying 
to what I recollect — what I know. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you later learn that such a demonstration had 
taken place and that the campaign resources were used to assist it? 

Mr. Stearx's. Some time in October, I was mailed a copy of an 
article in the Los Angeles Times which described the demonstration 
that did take place, and a co])y of a Los Angeles Times editorial en- 
titled, "A Demonstration of Maturity," which concluded : "The demon- 
strators demonstrated that a protest can be peaceful; the police dem- 
onstrated that it is possible to maintain order without force. AVelcome 
civility." This is not something that alarmed me terribly. 

Mr. Lexzxer. But the reports also indicate that the campaign re- 
sources had been used to aid that demonstration and, in fact, that was 
an issue in California at that time, was it not ? 

Mr. Stearx-^s. As I recall, what I saw was a very short article which 
i I think was in the Los Angeles Times, sometime in October, which said 
, that the telephone banks in the McGovern headquarters had been used, 
j not by McGovern personnel, I think, but by people outside of the 
j campaign for a brief period of time, and then they had been told to 


Mr. Lexzxer. After you read that, did you discuss that incident 
with anybody at all in the McGovern campaign, either in Washington 
or in California? 

Mr. Stearxs. No, I did not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you take any steps to insure it would not happen 
again either in California or anywhere else in the country ? 

Mr. Stearxs. No; it appears steps had been taken and the issue 
you were talking about was a perfectly peaceful assembly which I 
understood was a constitutionally protected right of citizens. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I understand that, but the use of resources of the 
demonstration was clearly against the policy of the campaign ; so this 
was a violation of the ])olicv of your headquarters, was it not? 

Mr. Stearxs. So what ? The article that I saw suggested that it had 
been i)ut to a stop. It did not appear there had been any great harm 
done. I do not recall it as being any major burning issue. It only be- 
came a burning issue, as I recall, when the CREP attempted tr> make 
it one; and I do not think at the time anybody thought it was a hor- 
rendous and horrible thing that had taken place. 

]Mr. Lexzx'er. Mr. Taugher testified he thought a peace demonstra- 
tion would be beneficial to this McGovem campaign. 

Mr. Stearxs. That was Mr. Taugher's opinion. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you discuss that issue with him at any time ? 

Mr. Stearns. Not at all. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Lenzner. 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompsox". Pardon me; could I have my copy of the transcript? 
I have a couple of places marked there. 

Mr. Dash. We will exchange the transcript with you. 

Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Stearns, you refer on page 2 of your statement : 
"I welcome scrutiny now, but not the innuendoes and slanders which 
are the last refuge of those who cannot acquit themselves except by 
accusing others." What innuendoes and slanders are you referring to ? 

Mr. Stearx'S. I am referring principally to the testimony that I 
heard Mr. Haldeman give before this committee in which Mr. Halde- 
man, as I recall, implied in his characterization, I think, of Avhat Mr. 
Segretti was supposed to do — implied that Democratic candidates had 
engaged in things like violent disruptions, demonstrations, heckling, 
shouting, obscenities, trashing of headquartere, firebombings, stab- 
bings of police officers, and so on. Well, that essentially was the larger 
smear against our camj^aiffn I Avas talking about. Minor smears of the 
campaign were mounted against me in 1972 — attempting to im- 
pugn Senator McGovern 's position on the Middle East by imputing 
to him a position that I did not hold on the ^Middle East. 

Mr. Thompson. You refer on page 1 of your statement to news- 
paper accounts of some of committee staff engaging in a fishing ex- 
pedition in order to place blame on the Democratic campaign, wliich 
sought honestly and decently to provide a different kind of leadership. 
Do you resent your being called before this committee, Mr. Stearns? 

Mr. Stearx-^s. No. I am here as a voluntary witness. Would you like 
me to expand on what I resent ? 

Mr. Thompsox. Yes, I would. 


Mr. Stearns. What I resent is tlie equilibrium of the situation. 
As I understand the thrust of the assistant majority counsel's ques- 
tioning — the thrust of his questioning is this : That perhaps a few tele- 
phones in California were used in disputed circumstances for a brief 
period of time to recruit people as a matter of conscience to participate 
in an utterly peaceful assembly; and that perhaps as many as 1,000 
■leaflets, as I gather from Mr. Taugher's testimony yesterday, were 
placed on 50 tables in 50 diverse locations in Los Angeles, 

Mr. Thompson. Do you agree with that part of Mr. Taugher's 
testimony ? 

Mr. Stearns. No; I do not agree with that. I am saying that on 
the basis of what he said. I say, at best in disputed circumstances, that 
might have been what had happened. 

Mr. Thompson. What circumstances? 

Mr. Stearns. Somehow this is being equated with the kind of things 
I referred to earlier. 

Mr. Thompson. Who is equating that with the kind of things you 
referred to earlier ? 

Mr. Stearns. I think the manner in which this presentation is being 

Mr. Thompson. How is the presentation being made as to equate it 
with the kind of things you were talking about 1 minute ago? 

Mr. Stearns. I think by inference. Here are the Democrats 

Mr. Thompson. By whose inference? Have you read the resolution 
that set this committee up ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, I have not. 

M>. Thompson. Do you not think it would be appropriate to find out 
what the mandate of this committee is before you make charges 
against this committee and partisanship on the part of the staff? 

]\f r. Stearns. No : I do not. 

Mr. Thompson. You realize that this resolution requires this com- 
mittee to look into the campaign activities of 1972 and that the Demo- 
crats are no more immune than the Republicans, and Mr. Dash and 
Mr. Lenzner agree with that principle ? 

Mr. Stearns [conferring with counsel]. I am sorry, would you state 
the question again ? 

Mr. Thompson. No, I would not. I think you understand the ques- 
tion. I would ask you whether or not you know why you are here 
today. Do you feel it was a partisan effort on someone's behalf to bring 
you here today to equate the use of the plione bank with bombings and 
lootings and things of tliat matter ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes ; my conviction is that is so. 

Mr. Thompson. You think that is a partisan effort ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes. 

Mr. Thompson. In what way ? 

Mr. Stearns. I think this is an attempt to equate a minor disputed 
incident with the revelations that this committee has brought before 
the public over the past 

Mr. Thompson. In what way is it partisan? You answered "Yes" 
when I asked you. 

Mr. Stearns. I think there is a basic premise, and Mr. Haldeman— — 

Mr. Thompson. You can elaborate on that if you wish at a later time 
but I am talking about, from the standpoint of partisanship, your being 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 14 


called to testify about this particular matter and I assume this has to do 
with the committee. If you would be more specific with that, I would 
appreciate it. 

Mr. Stearns. It is my belief there is an attempt to make an equation. 

JMr. Thompson. By whom ? 

Mr. Stearns. There is an attempt by some members of the staff of 
this committee. 

Mr. Thompson. Who ? 

MV. Stearns. I am not here to make specific 

Mr. Thompson. I am asking you to be specific. You have leveled 
these charges. I did not bring them up ; you put them in your state- 
ment, ^Ir. Lenzner 

Mr. Stearns. They are my firm belief. I am not here to namecall. 

Mr. Thompson. You are not here to name call. 

Mr. Stearns. No. 

Mr. Thompson. Well, you already called a few. 

Mr. Stearns. No, I did not call anyone any names. In fact, I have 
said, and I think I made clear in my statement, that one of the tiling 
I appreciate most about politics is the opportunity to meet people 
from both parties who I think repi-esent the highest standard of con- 
duct, the highest standard of pi-inciples of politics this country should 
represent. I am not a professional politician but one of the at- 
tractions to me in a political campaign has been the opportunity to 
meet the kind of people I have met. I think generally politics is a de- 
cent profession in this country. It is a profession that I would like 
to see rcDresented in the best possible light. 

Mr. Thompson. I agree with all those sentiments. Can we get back 
to the question at hand? As I said, you stated in your statement here 
that you gave — that the committee staff is on a fishing expedition to 
blame the Democratic campaign which sought honestly and decently 
to pro\ide a different kind of national leadership. You refer to in- 
nuendoes and slanders; you refer to unfounded attacks on Democratic 
integrity. Now, here is your ojiportunity, Mr. Stearns, if you want 
to be a little more specific than that as to where the partisanshij) comes 
in, why ypu have a right to resent, if you do, being called here as 
many, many other people haA'e been called and on much more notice, 
as a matter of fact, than many other witnesses have had. 

Mr. Eeltott. Mr, Thompson, on the notice issue, I got a call at 
a])proximately noon on Tuesday. I reached Mr. Stearns in his law 
scliool class at about 4 o'clock on Tuesday, this week. He was asked to 
be down tliere Tuesday evening and we were down here at 9 o'clock 
Wednesday morning, and you know by the new math or the old math 
that is less than 24 hours and less thaii the g-uidelines set forth in the 
Senate resolution. We, as a matter of court esv, got down here and gave 
our best recollection of the events Ave Avere questioned on. 

Mr. T'hoa[i>s()n. It is mv understanding tliat a sub))ena had been 
issued at tlie time the staffers had negotiated Avith you and agreed to 
hold off. That is correct, as a mattei- of fact, is it not, and can be sub- 
stantiated if need be — 'but a subpcna had been issued and Ave Avith- 
held the subpena \n order for you to bi'ing him in voluntarily to avoid 
the stigma of having been subpenaed. 

Mr. Mannino. That is not ti'ue — completely untrue. Mr. Stearns is 
here A'oluntarilA'. 


INIr. Thompson. I am not saying there is any question about his vol- 
untarily appearing. 

Mr. Manning. What was the basis of your recollection that we were 
being subpenaed, and out of the grace of your office withheld the 
subpena ? That has never been said to either Mr. Elliott or myself. 

Mr. Thompson. I am not concerned as to whether or not it had been 
said, I am stating as a matter of fact that, although you never dis- 
agreed or you never stated that you would not voluntarily come, as a 
matter of what tlie staff was doing, that a subpena had been issued, but 
it was not served at your request. 

Mr. Manning. That is not true. It was not served because there was 
no need to serve and we never requested that you not subpena him. 
What Ave said was we would provide Mr. Stearns; there would be no 
necessity to subpena. We said nothing about witliholcling a subpena. 

Mr. Thompson. You did not request we not subpena him. You said 
it would not be necessary to subpena him, is that correct? 

Mr. ]\rANNiNG. We said Mr. Stearns would be down here. No one 
raised the question of subpena with him and he is here and he is 
voluntarily — and we resent the impi-ession he is not here voluntarily. 
You have subpenaed a lot of people and you have not had to subpena 
INIr. Stearns. 

Mr. Thompson. I am talking about Mr. Stearns' treatment and that 
which anyone else has received, and I see no difference, frankly. 

I refer to page 2 of your statement where you say. "We were open 
and frank with tlie press and the American people.'' I don't wish to 
equate some of the things we are talking about now to some of the 
things you were talking about before. Obviously there can be no 
equation. I think it is just as obvious that there have been major wrong- 
doings. I would not think that that would be any excuse, under any 
sort of legitimate or political philosopliy. to excuse minor wrongdoings 
if they are such. 

Mr. Stearns. I must object to the use of the term "wrongdoing." 
I am not sure what wrongdoing you are alluding to. 

Mr. Thompson. Would you say there would be no ethical considera- 
tions in organiziniz: or assisting in the organizing of demonstrations 
such as the one at Century Plaza ? 

Mr. Stearns. I know of no demonstration that was organized by any 
McGovern campaign. 

Mr. THo:viPSON.-That is not what I asked you, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. Stearns. Xo, I think you were talking about a protected con- 
stitutional right. 

Mr. Thompson. Of course. 

Mr. Stearns. I know nothing that would suggest it was wrongdoing ; 
T would not personally do it. 

Mr. Thompson. Would you say there would be ethical considerations 

Mr. Stearns. I think in almost any decision one makes in his life 
there are ethical considerations involved. T don't see it as a wrongdoinar. 

^Mr. Thompson. If there is no question about the propriety of it, 
I assume there would be no ethical considerations involved, would 
there ? 

Mr. Stearns. You have lost me. 

Mr. Manning. I don't think we heard the question, Mr. Thompson; 
would you repeat it ? 


Mr. Thompson. Would you say there would be ethical considerations 
involved in organizing- a demonstration of this sort ^ 

Mv. Stearns. I know of no demonstration organized by the JSIc- 
Govern campaign. 

Mr. Thompson. That is not what I asked you, Mr. Stearns. We have 
got direct conflict between your testimony and Mr. Taugher's testi- 
mony on a material point. Your motivation and your attitude toward 
the matter as well as our specific recollection, I think, is relevant. 

Mr. Stearns. Xo ; you don't have a direct material conflict. You have 
different recollections that Mr. Taugher and I have given. I would like 
to go back to what I said earlier. This meeting was not the reason that 
I was iji Los Angeles. It was a minor, incidental event in a nnich more 
important day for me. I was accomplishing a much more important 
matter. Frankly, I did not i-emember this meeting — at least since the 
campaign — until it was mentioned to me by one of the assistant coun- 
sels when I first appeared here for a staff interview. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you think that if you had a discussion of this 
matter with regard to the use of McGovern phone banks — you said a 
few phones, I believe the testimony was 12 to 15 phones; you say for 
a limited amount of time, I believe the testimony was 2 days. You said 
it was shut down, I believe the testimony was it was shut down only 
because Senator ^NIcGovern was coming to town and needed the phones. 

]Mr. Stearns. This is not my testimony. This is my recollection of 
the newspaper article I read which gave an account of what happened. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. If you had sat through a convei-sation 
like that, involving a matter w'hich evidently accorcling to you, tvould 
be contrary to at least your policy and your understanding of the 
policy of the ^NIcGovern campaign, and then shortly after that con- 
versation had read in the newspapers about the phone banks being 
used, whether or not you approved of it, do you think that would be 
something that you would remember? 

Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, I was never in a meet- 
ing in which the incident that you are talking about happened. 

Mr. Thompson. Would that not be a significant thing with you in 
the midst of a political campaign? 

~Siv. Stearns. Well, again you are talking about hypothetical situa- 
tions that didn't happen. 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, we are. 

Mr. Stearns. If it happened or at leas-t if I recollected it happening, 
then it might have been a significant thing but you are talking about 
an incident which to me was pure hypothesis. 

Mr. Thompson. You say there is really no conflict between you and 
Mr. Taugher — just a matter of recollection? 

]Mr. Stearns. I said there was no conflict on a material point. I said 
his recollection was one thing and my recollection was another. I have 
given you my l)est recollection and I assume he gave you his best 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Taugher testihed yesterday on page 8815 of the 

I am not sure how it first came up. as I said a few moments ago. Tlie meeting 
was underway at the time I walked in. the two women were dismissing witli Rieli 
tlieir attendance at the prior night's organizational meeting and he— 


Referring to you — 

as I came in, he then turned to me and brought me up to date on what they had 
discussed up to that point. 

Mr. Stearns. I don't believe that I am here to give you Mr. 
Taugher's recollection. 

Mr. TiiOMPSOx. But you are here to respond as to whether or not 
this is accurate and as to whether or not this would be something you 

Mr. Stearns. I have given you my response; I have given you my 
best recollection. 

Mr. Thompson. That did not occur, to your best recollection ? 

Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection this did not occur. 

Mr. Thompson. You don't think this would be a matter that would 
be of significance to you in the midst of a political campaign? 

Mr. Stearns. Not if it didn't occur ; no. 

Mr. Thompson. What if it did occur ? 

Mr. Stearns. Again you are talking about an incident which I don't 
think took place and I am not here to testify about things which, to 
the best of my recollection, did not happen. 

Mr. Thompson. You are about to testify about what you thought 
was significant in a political campaign, Mr. Stearns. I thought you 
had responsibility for this State. 

IMr. Stearns. As I explained, our campaign w'orked in a peculiar 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, I know. 

Mr. Stearns. It was not one in which there was a distinguishable 
chain of command. Yes; I was responsible. My responsibility was in 
the initial organization of the campaign in each State but the principle 
of our campaign — which we followed from the very beginning and I 
think you can find evidence of the fact it was followed in almost the 
entire record of the campaign — is that once an organization was in 
place, the day-to-day authority in that campaign was in the hands of 
the people who managed it locally. I mean, as a measure of how im- 
portant my control over that State was, as soon as we encountered what 
was thought to be a more difficult problem of the campaign — I was 
sent to Pennsylvania for a month, even though I was still nominally 
the western regional coordinator. jVIy function in any administrative 
sense with the campaign stopped at the point that a campaign organi- 
zation was in place. It was the nature of our campaign; we were not a 
Eepublican campaign. I wish sometimes we had been- — much less 

Mr. Tho.aipson. Did you hear ]\Ir. Taugher's testimony yesterday 
or did vou have a chance to watch it on television? 

Mr. K^TEARNS. I heard parts of it yesterday afternoon on a radio 
station which then interrupted it to go to a program about the Vice 
President. I heard it very late. I came in at the end of it. I tried to 
watch it last night, but I went to sleep around 11 o'clock and so I 
missed it. 

Mr. Thompson. He testified yesterday to the effect that this dis- 
continuing of the use of the phone bank was because Senator Mc- 
Govern came to town. That they, in fact, approved it. Of course, here 
in the reported testimony he also stated that vou approved it ; that he 
approved it; that they were used; that after it happened he informed 


Ml'. Lu Haas, who was in charge of press relations for that State, tho 
full story ; that, in fact, it had been approved beforehand ; that, in fact, 
it had been stopped because Senator McGoveni came down and they 
needed the telephones. We presented a couple of newspaper articles 
and, I believe — perhaps you have one of them with you — wherein Mr. 
Haas is quoted and his assistants are both quoted to the etfect that 
when they found out about it they concluded it must have been some 
self-serving individual Avho did this, and as soon as it was discovered 
it was immediately stopped. 

Xow, assuming Mr. Taugher's testimony is correct, with regard to 

his approval anyway, and assuming that Mr. Taugher's testimony is 

correct with regard to what he told Mr. Haas about the facts, would 

you call the McGovern response to this matter open and frank with 

the press and the American people ? 

Mr. Steakxs. I am sorry; it is my recollection that I left, I think to 
return to "Washington that very afternoon. I was not there when any 
of these discussions took place, presumably, betAveen Mr. Taugher and 
Mr. Haas or anyone else. 

Mr. Thompson. I am not sure I understand the significance of the 
slander that you said had been leveled against you. Is that with regard 
to the letter concerning your position on the Arab-Israeli controversy? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes. At the October 3 meeting I read into the tran- 
script a number of examples of the character of this campaign, includ- 
ing the initial statement I signed in 1967 that was in controversy, and 
then some examples of how this issue had been used against the McGov- 
ern campaign in 1972. 

Mr. Manning. Those were marked as exhibits starting at page 67 
of the executive session transcript and should be part of your records 
for that da3\ 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, I believe I have them here before me. How was 
this used unfairly ? 

Mr. Stearns. Well, let me give an example. The way it was used 
unfairly was to take views that, first, I did not hold. Views that I had 
made clear publicly on any number of occasions. I introduced several 
of those occasions into the transcript of this committee, including a 
letter which appeared in the Near East report on July 26, 1972, where 
I dealt with the cliarges that had been made against me in terms of 
my views on the Middle East, and I explained what my current position 
was on the Middle East. 

My views were widelv ])ublicized. Dai'ticularly in the Jewish press 
in this country. An article was introduced from the Jewish Standard 
of August 4, 1972, where I stated some of the reasons why I had 
changed my opinions on the Middle East in the intervening 5 years 
since signing the ad in 1967. 

Then, to give some of the examples of how it was used against me : 
First, I learned froui an inquiry from a member of the press that Mr. 
Shumway was si)reading the notion that I had been a guerrilla leader 
for Al Fatah, Avhich is a ridiculous assertion on its face but nonetheless 
a dangerous calumnv — the kind of assertion that inspired a great deal 
of hate-mail directed at me personally durin.q; the campaign. 

Then I learned from Jack Anderson's column on August 24, 1972 : 

GOP fielclworkers have started a wliisi^ering campaign against George McGov- 
ern's western regional chief, Riclv Stearns, who is heing labeled anti-Israeli 


because of a .j-year-okl ad he signed as a student. The ad was construed to be 
pro-Arab, but Stearns has now fully endorsed McGovern's pro-Israeli policy. 
And Democratic aides call the whisper campaign against Stearns a "blatant 

Then I introduced an ad ^yhicll had been published by the Democrats 
for Nixon which I think is a repreliensible and scurrilous piece of liter- 
ature. This ad first attempts to associate me with Mr. M. Mehdi, who 
is apparently the representative of Palestine terrorist organizations 
in the United States. 

This is Rick Stearns. He coordinates the McGovern campaign in the West — 
at the time of the 6-day war he was a signer of anti-Israel ads in the Washington 
Post and Xew York Times .sponsored by anti-Israel elements in the United 
States. He wants you to vote for McGovern, his employer. 

And goes on to make a similar insinuation against Gary Hart, Mc- 
Govern's campaign manager, derived from, to the best of my knowl- 
edge a wliolly falacious article which appeared in the George Wash- 
ington University student newspaper. This is the kind of slander and 
smear I am talking about. 

One of the reasons that my role in California was as diminished as 
it was, was that I was spending so much time handling this kind of 
smear and this kind of charge that I would have been a political 
liability for the campaign in the Los Angeles area if I had ever tried 
to assert any administrative authority there. 

This was a blatant, reprehensible smear which has caused great 
damage to my reputation, and I resented it. 

Mr. Thompson. Before we get to who is responsible for the smear, 
let's make sure we understand exactly what the smear is. 

As I understand it, in the letter they refer to an open letter to Presi- 
dent Johnson* by Middle East specialists which you signed as inter- 
national atfairs vice president, I^'nited States National Student Asso- 
ciation. It is about a page and a half letter, and I don't wish to try to 
paraphrase it for you — you can do that if you would. But basically I 
imagine the major point is that it is their position that the Israelis 
should return the land that they had gotten in the recent war. 

Would that be the most specific ? 

Mr. Stearxs. Xo; I would it differently. I would say — 
you know that one of the elements of the ad respectfully urges the 
"President to deal with what, at the time — you must remember when we 
signed this ad I signed it in my capacity as vice president of the 
National Student Association. This was our policy at the time. It was 
the official policy and I was the international vice president and the 
appropriate person, therefore, to make the signature. Let me finish 
characterizing the ad. 

Mr. Thompsox. If you will pardon me, on that point, I might ask. 
did you personally also believe in the statement ? 

Mr. Stearxs. Yes; as I said, at the time, these ads reflected the views 
I held in 1967. 1 never equivocated on the fact that they were my views. 
As I say, I participated in the ad with the National Student Associa- 
tion. It suggested, first, that there would be military withdrawal and 
that Israel would return to essentially the borders — the status quo 
prior to the 19G7 conflict. The ad condenmed, or said that it could not 
condone Arab provocation ; said that there had to be a just and lasting 

'Previously entered as part of exhibit 159. see Book 10, p. 4103. 


resolution of the refugee problem. It said that the United States 
should, in terms of President Eisenhower's wa^'ning; of February 20, 
1957, insist on the territorial integrity of eveiy state in the Middle 
East. It proposed that negotiations be undertaken on questions relat- 
ing to recognition, maritime rights, border agreements, and water dis- 
tribution. The premise of the ad was that — what we feared at the time 
Avas that the Soviets had been given an opportunity- for intervention 
in the area, Avhicli in fact turned out to be a very accurate prediction. 

I might say that the U.S. Government essentially adopted and sup- 
ported this policy when it voted for TLN". Security Council Kesolu- 
tion 242 in 1967. That is the position we had then and, as best I know, 
it is still the position the IT.S. Government holds today. 

Now, I said that there were two things that motivated me to change 
my vicAvs. I think at the time, if I Avere to characterize my vieAvs, I 
Avould say they tended to be somcAvhat more sympathetic to the Arabs 
than certainly the average American politician tended to be. But there 
Avere tAvo things that impelled me to reAnse my views. One Avas Soviet 
intervention. The second Avas the Arab campaign of terrorism. I do 
not approve of terrorism, I could not approA^e of violence, and I cer- 
tainly do not approA^e of the acts that occurred after the Avar and, I 
suppose, are occurring noAv at the present time. 

Consequently, again my Anews Avere no secret. As I said in my letter 
to the Near East Report : 

AVith regard to my present views I support the Middle Eastern plank enun- 
ciated in tlie platform of the Democratic Party. In fact I managed the floor 
adoption by voice A'ote of the stronger language contained in the amehdment 
proposed by Senator Jackson. I also support Senator McGovern's position on 
the Middle East and have defended it pul)liely on a number of occasions during 
the course of the campaign. Tliere is, as I am sure you are aware, a tendency 
in the peace movement to assimilate the American posture toward Vietnam, 
and its attendant difficulties, with our stance toward Israel. One of the most 
positive contributions Senator McGovern and his campaign has made to the 
discussion of Middle Eastern affairs is an effective of the distinction 
between the two cases. 

In closing, may I add a personal note. I regret that any statement I may have 
made 5 years ago has been injected into this campaign as an issue. I doubt that 
many people can honestly and accurately re-create their opinion after such a 
lapse of time or would necessarily want them in.scribed forever as a final state- 
ment. Our past cannot always he made to conform with our perceptions of the 

Mr. Thompson. So the original letter to President Johnson was 
interpreted at the time as being a pro- Arab letter ? 

Mr. Stearns. Certainly; in this advertisement, in fact, it is worse 
than that. Democrats for Nixon characterized it as anti-Israel. 

Mr. Thompson. Well. Avould you say it is not anti-Israel? 

Mr. Stearns. No, I Avould say it is not anti-Israel. Are you saying 
that the U.S. Government policy is anti-Israel ? 

Mr. Thompson. I am asking you, Mr. Stearns. You said it is pro- 
Arab, but it is not anti-Israel. 

Ml-. Stearns. I said I described — my sympathies Avere certainly more 
pro-Arab than the average American's or the aA^erage American 
politician's. I am saying this ad is essentially the U.S. GoA^ernment's 
polic}- — then and today. 

Mr. Thompson. As you held them before- you changed your mind, 
in Avhat Avay Avere those vieAvs misrepi-esented ? The fact that they 
Avere referred to as anti-Israel? Is that the misrepresentation? 


Mr. Stearns. That is a misrepresentation. Certainly, attempting to 
associate me with a representative of the Palestine terrorists, espe- 
cially when you remember that this occurs in the context of a hor- 
rible massacre at the Olympic games at Munich ; when you have the 
publicist for the Republican 

Mr. TiiOMPSOX. Pardon me, where is that referred to in the ad ? 

Mr. Stearns. It says at the top : "This is him, M. Mehdi ; due to 
^Munich, his picture is irrelevant. He helped the Arab propaganda 
machine in the United States. He says after Shirley Chisholm, our 
second choice would be Senator INIcGovern — 'to this day,' '' in large 
type, "Medhi still,-' and so on, "This is Rick Stearns. He coordinates 
the McGovern campaign in the West." If that is not an association, 
what is ? 

"At the time of the 6-day war, he was a signer of anti-Israel ads 
in the Washington Post and the Xew York Times" — That is certainly 
not true. The ad was never in the New York Times— "sponsored by 
anti-Israel elements in the United States. He wants you to vote for Mc- 
GoA^ern." I do not think it was sponsored by anti-Israel elements in 
the United States. I do not consider myself as an anti-Israel element 
nor did I consider the National Student Association as an anti-Israel 

Mv. Thompson. Then, it goes on to say : "This is Hubert Humphrey," 
and it quotes Hubert Humphrey as saying : "Senator INIcGovern was 
wrong on Israel, has been wrong on labor law, has been wrong on 
three other great issues in Calif oiTiia." 

Mr. Stearns. They do not disclose what the three issues in Cali- 
fornia were. 

INIr. Thompson. He quotes Jimmy Roosevelt, quotes Gary Hart, then 
a picture of President Nixon and Golda jMeir at the bottom. 

You mentioned, I believe, Mr. Van Shumway and the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President. This firet came about in the California pri- 
mary, did it not, ]Mr. Steams? 

Mr. Stearns. I believe that it did. I introduced an advertisement — 
not an advertisement, a news article — which ap]5eared in the Los An- 
geles Times on June 16, 1972, and suggested that this is one of the 
issues that had been raised in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Thompson. It says here, and the copy I have does not have a 
date. By Bill Boyarsky, would that be the one? 

IVIr. Stearns. Yes, it is by Bill Boyarsky. 

Mr. Thompson. It says that Frank ^lankiewicz, who headed the 
McGovern campaign, says he understands that reprints of the article 
had been distributed during the successful California fight against 
Senator Hubert H. Hmnphrey. 

Mr. Stearns. "WHiere are you reading from ? 

]Mr. Thompson. I am reading from the top of the second column, 
first paragraph. 

Mr. Stearns. All right. 

]Mr. Thompson [reading] : 

Humphrey has charged McGovern, a dove on Vietnam, would also be dovish in 
dealing witli Israeli defense against Arab attacks. In the last days before the 
California primary, the Humphrey campaign blitzed Jewish neighborhoods with 
literature containing such charges. 

Do you know whether or not any of this type of literature concern- 
ing you was distributed ? 


]Mr. Stearxs. I don't laiow. As I explained earlier, I was working in 
the nonprimary States at the time. The only time I was in California 
in that period was on the night of the victory party in Los Angeles, I 
think on June 6. I don't see that this article says that Senator Hum- 
phrey's campaign, if they were circulating this kind of material, were 
circulating any material that related to me. 

Now it is liard to tell what literature any of us circulated. 

Mr. TiKt^MPSox. Do you know whethei- or not any such literature 
pertaining to you Avas circulated in California ? 

Mr. Si^ARNS. I don't. Mr. Boyarsky says that it Avas an issue in Cali- 
fornia, but as I said, I am not sure that we know what material was 
being circulated in our names any place. 

Mr. Thompson. Or by whom ? 

Mr. Stearns. Well, it could just as easily have been — I understand 
the committee has heard evidence of material circulated in the names 
of various Democratic candidates wliich they did not in fact authorize, 
print, or distribute. 

Mr. TiTO.MPSON. So what you are saying in effect is you don't know 
the source of it? 

Mr. Stearns. In California, no. 

Mr. Thompson. In the Near East Report, "McGovern-Shriver 197'2,'' 
it says — what is this Near East Report, by the way ? 

Mr. Stearns. I would regard it as a very influential, very objective 
publication which is closely allied to the Zionist movement in the 
Ignited States. That would be my best characterization. I don't know 
a great deal about it. I know I have great admiration for Mr. lyenen 
who edits it and whom I discussed this issue with during the summer 
of 1972. 

Mr. Thompson. The opening paragraph says: 

Richard O. Stearns, the 27-year-old Rhodes scholar who holds a key post 
in the McGovern campaign, has come under fire because his name appeared on 
pro-Arab advertisements after the 6-day war. He has been criticized in columns 
by Joseph Alsop, .John P. Roche, and in an anti-]McGovern memorandum cir- 
culated by the AFL-CIO. 

Were you aware of this memorandum circulated by the AFI./-CIO? 

Mr. Stearns. No : I was not. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know Avhere it was circidated ? 

Mr. Stearns. No ; not if I was not aware of it. 

Let me say just by contrast, you can find this same kind of mate- 
rial about anybody in politics. Here is a Jack Anderson report on 
November 10, 1971, that the Committee To Re-Elect the President has 
employed a gentleman as the head of the Slovak-American division 
of the Republican National Committee and as an adviser to the Small 
Business Administration, a gentleman who was a Drominent pro-Nazi 
propagandist in Slovakia during World War II. This column appears 
undei- the headline, "Nixon A])pears a Little Soft on Nazis." 

I think this is just as reprehensible as the kind of matei-ial that was 
used against me. This is not tlie kind of material we would ever have 
considered using in our campaign. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Stearns, T have a few other questions, but I have 
taken too much time already and I Avill pass this time. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, ^Iv. Thompson. 

Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. Thank vou verv much. 


Mr. Stoarns, as chief of the research division of the McGovern 
Campaign Committee, and as Western States coordinator of the Mc- 
(Tovern Campaign Committee, or as any officer of any anthority or 
responsibility, did you exer openly or covertly advocate, support, au- 
thorize, or direct violent dmonstrations ? 

Mr. Stearxs. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Did you, in those capacities which I just listed, au- 
thorize, advocate, support, or direct the printing or publication or dis- 
playing of obscene or vulgar placards? 

Mr. Stearxs. No, sir. 

Senator Ixouye. In those capacities, were you ever aware of any 
other persons in similar authority advocating, supporting, directing, or 
financing violent demonstrations or the printing or the publication or 
display of vulgar, obscene material ? 

Mr. Stearns. Xo. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. sir. 

That is all. 

Senator Baker. Thank you. 

Mr. Stearns, I don't want to prolong the line of inquiry you have 
dealt with at some length to your opening statement, but I would 
like to elaborate on one point to make sure I have it clearly fixed in 
my mind. I detect a resentment on your part that you have been called 
and that you interpret your being called as a witness as, in some way, 
an effort to besmirch the good name of Democrats by trying to elicit 
from you testimony of matters that are relatively inconsequential in 
your view when related against the rather spectacular allegations 
made in other testimony. I say that not because I ask you to agree 
with it, but because I want you to know how I react to the totality of 
your statement. I am going to stop at that point and ask you to cor- 
rect it, to agree with it. or to elaborate on it as you see fit. 

Mr. Stearxs. The only elaboration I would make is I think it also 
casts aspersions on a man who is my principal inspiration for being in 
politics, one of the finest men I ever worked for, who ran a campaign 
that I think any man would be proud of. Yes, I do; I think it Avould 
be fair to say that I feel some resentment. 

Senator Baker. At being called at all ? 

Mr. Stearns. Obviously, you know, I am here. At least I think 
I am a law student. I have spent more time on this in the last month 
than I really have on the law. 

But I would say my resentment is not at appearing before the com- 
mittee, because I think the committee has, as I said in my statement, 
a legislative purpose and at its best, it's politics at its best. But I do 
resent the thrust of questions which do cast aspersions, first on my 
party, which I think are unfair and wrong, and second, on a man 
whom I admire very much. 

Senator Baker. I wonder if you could substitute yourself into my 
position, and if you would, think back on the idea of seeing questions, 
an interrogation of witnesses, queries put to Republicans day after day 
and week after week, with my full participation and that of my staff 
to elicit all the facts and circumstances, whether they turned out to be 
favorable or unfavorable. Would you counsel or advise me to resent 
them being called? 

Mr. Stearns. Senator, there are times when I would like to be in 
your position. But I can't — you are doing your job. I would counsel 


you to do the job that you thought was right, that you thought was 
your duty as a Senator of the United States. But because I would 
counsel you to do that does not mean that I still don't have the priv- 
ilege as a private citizen of feeling resentment at what I think ai'e 
(luestions that at least tend to cast aspersions on my party and my 

Senator Baker. I think you have screamed before you are stuck. 1 
might point out, Mr. Stearns, that there has not been a single wit- 
ness called by the minority staff — not yet; that there has been a high 
degree of cooperation between the majoi'ity staff and the minority 
start"; that we are trying our dead-level best to follow the mandate 
of Senate Resolution 60, which is to inquire into the possibility of 
illegal, improper, or unethical activities. And I really caution you not 
to feel resentful of it, that questions are put, because we are going 
to look into it. We are going to look into it whether it is Republicans 
or Democrats, and we are going to let the cliips fall where they may ; 
so let us get on about the business of understanding that the public 
requires us to inquire into general campaign activities. And questions 
are going to be put to you and other witnesses that you might prefer 
not to be put. But I really urge you not to resent it, and I do detect 
tliat note of resentment in your voice and in your statement. 

, Mr. Stearns. Senator, I would never obstruct the work of the com- 
mittee. I am here, appearing voluntarily, but I think my own feelings 
are my own matter and my own right to express. 
Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. 
Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Thank you. Senator Baker. 

At the very outset, prior to my questioning, I would like to read for 
the record, and then submit the same for the record after identification, 
the following letter. It is addressed to me from Senator McGovern. 

October 10, 1973. 

Dear Senator Montoya : I have examined the picture of Micliael Mc^Iinoway 
brought to my office by a member of the staff of the Senate Select Committee oil 
Presidential Campaign Activities. 

I do not recognize eitlier liis appearance or liis name. No one resembling this 
picture was in my room in the Doral during the evening when the California 
challenge was being considered at the convention or, as far as I know, at 
any other time. Since there was a Secret Service agent stationed immediately 
outside the door of my suite whenever I was there and since even close mem- 
bers of my staff were cleared to enter only when I wanted to see them, the sort 
of access he claims would have been impossible. 

With best regards, I am 
Sincerely yours, 

George McGovern. 

It is submitted under oath. 

I would like to submit this letter after it is properly identified ! 
for the record. 

Senator Baker. I take it. Senator Montova, that you identified the 
letter as the recipient of the letter. If there is no obiection, the letter 
will be received and appropriately identified, marked, and made part 
of the record. 

[The letter referred to was marked exhibit No. 241*.] 

Senator Baker. Counsel ])oints out that it qualifies on a second 
ground, tliat it would be fully admissible simply at the request of our 

•See p. 4743. 


colleague, Senator McGovern, but it qualifies under the rule of our 
section 26, which permits the submission of statements bearing on the 
testimony of previous witnesses. So it is received on both grounds by 
the committee as part of the official record. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Stearns, were you aware that any McGovern 
personnel were used for the so-called peaceful demonstration in L.A. 
against President Nixon ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir, I was not aware and I do not think anyone 
has suggested that any McGovern personnel were used in preparation. 
I do not think it was a so-called peaceful demonstration, I think it was 
a very peaceful demonstration, from eveiything I have been able to 
determine from the press reports. 

Senator Moxtoya. It was a peaceful demonstration? 

Mr. Stearxs. I would refer to the Los Angeles Times account, where 
they refer to a quotation from Police Lieutenant Kenneth Hickman : 

Acting as liaison oflScer between liis department and the demonstrators, praised 
organizers of the demonstration for their cooperation. They coordinated well 
with our department and they kept moving. They obeyed their own monitors and 
police directions. The people who organized this were really interested in keeping 
it orderly. 

As I said earlier, the Los Angeles Times, which certainly cannot be 
characterized as a McGovern rag, wrote an article entitled "Demonstra- 
tion of Maturity," concludino; "Welcome (^ivility." 

Senator Montoya. I think there is a general understanding on the 
basis of testimony that the demonstration was peaceful. 

Mr. Si'EARXs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did you know anvthing about the leaflets that 
were distributed and circulated inviting people to join in the 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Montoya. Now, I think that it is worthwhile to place the 
entire matter in proper ))ers)iective as to what transpired prior to the 
demonstration. I think Mr. Taugher's testimony is very relevant at 
this ]wint in view of what has happened this morning in the question- 
ing and the answers by you. 

I will quote now from the transcript : 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if any McGovern staff workers made any calls to 
solicit demonstrators? 

Mr. Tai'gher. No, they did not. We were interested in the McGovern staff 
workers to concentrate on our voter registration drive and for that reason, I did 
not want them to participate in this effort. 

Mr. Hamilton. What lists were used to make the phone calls? 

Mr. Taugher. I.,ists that were compiled by the people sponsoring the demonstra- 
tion. I believe on their lists, they had names of persons who had in the past 
attended various activities spon.sored by one or another of the groups that made 
up the coalition. 

Then, the testimony goes on further to indicate that about the only 
part that leaflets had in this and attributable to the ^McGovern head- 
quarters was the fact that some of these leaflets were j^laced in front 
of storefronts that were being used by the McGovern campaign, and 
they were merely pasted on the windows, and approximately only 
half of the storefronts were utilized for this purpose. 

Now, are you aware of these facts ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir, other than what you read me today. As 
I said earlier, I left, I think, on that same afternoon. I left to return 


to "Washington and could not haA'e monitored or been aware of any of 
the preparations for the demonstration. 

Senator Montoya. Now, there were some telephone calls made, but 
they were made, apparently, by people who were not associated with 
McGovern. They were the people handling the peaceful demonstration. 

INIr. Stearns. That appears to be ]Mr. Taugher's testimony ; yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Now, there has been quite an attempt made here 
this morning to equate A with B and so forth. Now, do you know of 
any tricks that were engaged in by the McGovem forces against the 
Kepviblicans in the last campaign? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator INIontoya. Do you know of any false advertising that was 
engaged in by the IMcGovern forces against the Eepublicans in the last 
campaign ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir ; I do not. 

Senator ]Montoya. Do you know whether there w^as any distribution 
of misleading literature on the part of the McGovern forces? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator JNIontoya. I am citing the instances testified to by Doug 
Kelly, who was one of the masters in that kind of campaign for the 
Republican National Committee. 

Mr. Stearns. I am sorry, sir, I am not familiar with this. 

Senator ]\Iontoya. All right. Now, ai-e you aware of any fake invi- 
tations that were sent by IMcGovern forces trying to confuse people? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Such as luncheon invitations to Nixon headquar- 
ters and so forth ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any fake press releases that 
w^ere delivered to the press in behalf of the opposition? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any false letters being circu- 
lated in the campaign by the IMcGovern forces ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any stinkbombs in any of the 
Nixon picnics or barbeques or meetings? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator ]\Iontoya. Are you aware of any other disruptions of any 
Nixon meetings sponsored by any of the McGovern forces ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any infiltration of Nixon fimd- 
raising dinners or Republican fundraising dinners on the part of 
McGovern forces ? 

Mr. Stearns. No, sir. 

Senator INIontoya. Are you aware of any sabotage activity in the 
Republican National Convention that might have been sponsored by 
the McGovern forces? 

i\Ir. Stearns. No, sir. I am not. 

Senator Montoya. So far as you know, the McGovern forces con- 
ducted as clean a campaign as is possible ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes, sir, I think that is a fair characterization. 

Senator Montoya. That is all. 

Senator Baker. Senator Gurney. 


Senator Gurnet. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to ask any ques- 
tions at all, but I will ask one. Before I do, though, I would like to 
make an observation. 

I have the same feeling as the acting chairman, Senator Baker, Mr. 
Stearns, that there is a charge here that you were brought for a 
partisan purpose. I would like to point out that your first interview 
and yovir being called here today was a decision made by the Demo- 
cratic counsel. The Eepublicans had nothing to do with it at all. You 
are one of their witnesses, not one of our witnesses. As the chairman 
has pointed out, we have 3'et to produce a single witness before this 
committee. "VVe have not put on our case yet. A\lien we do, I hope and 
I am sure we will put on witnesses that do have material facts to 
contribute something to this affair. 

My pointing that out is no criticism for bringing the witness at all, 
because I understand, it is my understanding you were brought for the 
specific purpose because there is a conflict in testimony with another 

Is that not right, Mr. Dash ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Senator Gurne}", I just want to confirm that the witness is being 
brought by the committee, and I think that we ought to really make 
clear for the record, that there really is not a minority witness or a 
majority witness. Frankly, as chief counsel for the full committee, we 
have produced this witness, and he has been — we have discussed this 
Avith Mr. Thompson, minority counsel. This is a committee witness, 
and our statf — the full staff — has been supportive producing the 

We could not, by the way, know whether or not we were going to call 
]\Ir. Stearns until we heard ^Ir. Taugher's testimony. 

Senator Gurxey. I understand, 

Mr. Dash. Actually, it was on th^t basis, because of the question 
of discrepancy, that it became necessary to produce the witness, in 
fairness to Mr. Stearns. 

Senator Gurney. I do understand, too, and I am glad you brought 
I this point out, that Republican counsel does confer or you confer 
with Republican counsel on witnesses being brought. I simply pointed 
out the initiation of the interview as well as the decision on bringing 
the witness really is not ours, that is all, to straighten out this business 
of any partisan business. 

Senator Baker. Senator Gurney, if you would yield for a moment on 
that point, I really think, in searching my own reaction to the witness' 
testimony, that is as disturbed as I guess I can recall, that this is the 
first witness — and I do not know how many witnesses we have — the 
first witness that has laid the allegation against the committee that 
I he was called for political reasons. I must confess I did not react fairly 
to that. I believe all the witnesses have been called in full concurrence 
'- of majority and minority counsel, and they have all appeared as 
committee witnesses, and I fully expect will continue that practice, to 
call witnesses only as committee wntnesses as time goes by. So for my 
part, I would like to underscore Senator Gurney's statement that we 
are calling no witnesses for an overt political purpose, but only for a 
factfinding mission and with a high degree of cooperation between the 
very excellent majority staff and minority staff". 


I yield. 

Senator Gtlt^ney. That certainly is true. 

I do have one question. A short time ago, ]Mr. Slivmnway called a 
member of the staff and said that he has never heard of yon, he has had 
no dealings with you, and he did not put out any statement such as 
you have indicated here. Would you elaborate on your charge, your 
testimony that Mr. Shumway put out a statement by you ? 

]\f r. Stearxs. Yes. I did not say he put out a statement ; I said that he 
had been spreading a rumor among the press. This came to my atten- 
tion when a member of the press came — called me — in this case a for- 
eign con-espondent from a German newspaper whose name I do not re- 
member — who asked me as a feature story for his news service in 
Germany if I would contribute some details and vignettes from my 
experience as a guerrilla leader, presumably in the Golan Heights 
or somewhere. When I picked myself up off the floor, I asked him 
where he had ever gotten the idea that I had had any experience as a 
guerrilla leader anywhere, and he said that he had been told that by 
Mr. Shumway at the CREP. 

Naturally, I was furious. I then went to a gentleman who is a close 
personal friend of mine, whom I consider one of the most honorable 
men I have known in politics, Mr. Patrick Buchanan. I related this 
incident to liim and asked if he would tell Mr. Shumway that I 
thought this went beyond the bounds of any propriety. I presume that 
is what Mr. Buchanan did, because no similar rumors came to me 

Senator Gfrxey. What was the name of the reporter ? 

Mr. Stearns. I said I do not recall. He was a German, foreign corre- 
spondent from a German paper. 

Senator Gitixey. What is the paper he represents ? 

Mr. Stearxs. I am sorry. I don't recall. This is back in 1972. 

Senator Gitixey. Well, that is not -so long ago. It is last year. "Wliat 
date did you talk to him, or did he talk to you ? 

Mr. Stearxs. I would guess that this must have been sometime 
around mid-July. 

Senator Gurxey. And where ? 

Mr. Stearxs. He called me at my office in Washington, the Mc- 
Govern office. 

Senator Gurxey. You didn't meet with him in person ; he called you 
on the i^hone, is that it ? 

Mr. Stearxs. He called me on the telephone, yes. 

Senator Gurxey. I must say, Mr. Stearns, the great big thing you 
made of this, I don't understand why you don't recall his name, the 
paper he writes for, or anything about it. If it made that big an 
impression and upset you so much, I don't understand why you don't 
recollect his name. 

Mr. Stearxs. Let me explain. It is not just this incident that made 
a big impression. In fact, I was under heavy attack because of the 
alleged position I had on the Mideast. I was receiving daily abusive 
letters, abusive telephone calls. My OAvn position in the campaign was 
jeopardized. I am convinced — in fact, I am sure as Mr. Evans and 
Mr. Novak, in two of the articles I introduced suggested, the issue of 
my continuing in the campaign was brought to barely this. This was 
just another incident in what looked to me, and I am convinced, was a 
calculated campaign to smear me. 


Senator Gurnet. Well, but I must say, ^Ir. Steams, I can under- 
stand why you would be upset, but don't you think j\Ir. Shimiway 
might be upset, too? He has already called here, very ang-ry', saying 
that he never heard of you, he never had any dealings Avith you, he 
never issued any such statement, and the best thing you can do here 
for us is one of these sources. 

Sometimes I think the source family is the biggest family in the 
United States, bigger tlian Smith and Jones. When anybody wants to 
make an accusation against somebody, it is always Mr. Source. And 
you have done it against Mr. Shumway. 

Now, I suggest you find out the name of this German reporter and 
the paper he works for and give it to the committee, and we will iim 
this down. 

Mr. Stearns. I will do my best. 

Senator Gurney. And find out who is telling the truth. That is 
what I would like to know, and that is the purpose of the committee. 

I don't have any other questions. 

Senator Baker. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Well, along that line, I think it might be help- 
fid, Mr. Chairman, if we also communicate with Mr. Buchanan, who 
I gather could corroborate or not corroborate the stoiy which Mr. 
Steams has told the committee. So I would suggest that the commit- 
tee contact Mr. Buchanan and ask whether or not he recollects such 
an occurrence, and this might assist in ascertaining the truth. 

Senator Baker. If the Senator will yield, if there is no objection on 
the pait of the committee, I will request committee staff to make a 
full inquiry into all of the circumstances attejidant on this incident 
and report to the committee. 

Senator Gurney. I think that would be excellent, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stearns. Fine, although — I would say I would like to know — • 
I would not mind seeing an inquiry into the full scope of this cam- 
paign that was run against me, although I appreciate the opportunity 
the committee has given for me to clarify now, in public forum, what 
my own views on the jNIideast were, and what the circumstances that 
led to this campaign and the campaign of 1972 were. 

Senator Baker. I take it you would be willing to cooperate with the 
committee counsel in gathering all the facts on this in an effort to 
identify the source, our efforts to compare this testimony to Mr. 
Buchanan's recollection and Mr. Shumway's as well. 

Mr. Stearns. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Senator, we respectfully made that suggestion in ex- 
ecutive session and Avould appreciate working with you to clean that 
situation up. 

Senator Baker. Thank you. 

Mr. Elliott. I think Mr. Justice Frankfurter made a very astute 
observation Avhen he said we cannot deny as judges what we know as 
men. You gentlemen are a very sophisticated group of national polit- 
ical figures, and I believe that there is not one of you seated there or 
anyone in this room who would believe that the use of code words or 
ethnic vilifications or anything else can elevate the political dialog at 
all, and I think this is such a very vicious situation that we should 
attempt to get to the bottom of it. 

Senator Baker. Thank you. 

Senator Weicker. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 15 


Senator Weicker. I don't have any specific questions of the wit- 
ness, Mr. Chairman, but I must express a questionino; attitude toward ! 
both the majority and minority counsel on this matter of the Century 
Plaza incident alid exactly how it relates to the mandate of this com- 
mittee. I mean by that, that it has been established, I think, both by 
the testimony of witnesses and also more specifically by the testimony 
of Officer Hickman, that the demonstration was peaceful, Now, the 
conflict-in-testimony ar^unent is raised as to who did what relative 
to McGovern's people in California and the actual demonstrator in 
organizing the demonstration. The difficulty that I have with that 
thrust or the thrust of such questioning, whether it is from the ma- 
jority or the minority, is that once it has been established that the dem- 
onstration was peaceful, it seems to me that we are getting into an area 
of the right of every American. It does not — I would hope that we are 
not purporting that such activity is either illegal, improper, or un- 
ethical. Yet at times, the questioning, as I say, from both sides has 
seemed to intimate that that aspect of the Century Plaza situation 
which related to the organizing of the demonstration, was either il- 
legal, improper, or unethical. 

I recall a passage ; I brought it with me today. This rather bothered 
me even during yesterday's questioning. This is from Mark Twain, "A 
Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court,"' which I thought was 
particularly applicable in this situation, and something I think all of 
us might remember. 

He says in that book : 

You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions 
or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal 
thing. It is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to. Institutions are 
extraneous, they are its mere clothing and clothing can wear out, become ragged, 
cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease and death. 
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags, that is 
a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal. It belongs to monarchy, was invented 
by monarchy, let monarchy Iceep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution 
declares : "That all political power is inherent in people and all free govern- 
ments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit that they 
may have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of 
government in such manner as they may think expedient." 

T'nder that gospel, the citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's 
political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a 
new suit is disloyal. He is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he 
sees this decay, does not him, it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is 
the duty of the others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does. 

Xow, I don't think anything can explain better the basis for our 
right as Americans to agitate, to assemble peacefully for the bringing 
about of change. T just want to make it clear that once we have estab- 
lished the fact that the demonstration at the Century Plaza was 
peaceful — and I think this lias been well established by a variety 
of witnesses and certainly principally the Los Angeles Police Depart- 
ment — then for us to pursue a line of incjuiry, whether on the majority 
or minority staff, as to how persons got together, whether in the form 
of a McGovorn campaign or as individuals or what have you, in my 
thinking has no relevance to the mandate of this committee and in 
fact, embarks us on a very dangerous course of conduct. I just wanted 
to get that out while I had the oi)portunity. 

INIr. Dash. Senator Weicker. and ]Mr. Chairman, T think it is im- 
portant to put on the record the relevance of producing the witnesses 


yesterday and today. I think the record is clear that when Mr. Halde- 
man testified and some other witnesses testified this particular incident 
was referred to and was referred to as a violent demonstration and 
that the committee was invited by Mr. Haldeman and some other 
witnesses to investigate that, and I think as the record stood at that 
time, all that the public knew and all that the record showed was 
that the Century Plaza demonstration was a very violent demonstra- 
tion that prevented President Nixon from being able to exercise his 
first amendment rights to speak and to present himself as the President 
of the United States. 

Senator Weicker. Counselor, that, I repeat, that fact having been 
established there is no disagreement. 

Mr. Dash. We had to do it publicly. 

Senator Weicker. That is good evidence in relation to previous 
testimony. What I am afraid I have to question is a line of questioning 
which involves not with the peacefulness of the demonstration, not 
with that at all. but rather as to whether individuals could consult and 
get together and form a part of that demonstration. I don't think 
that aspect of what happened is a proper line of inquiry for this 

Senator Baker. I think that— I am sorry, are you through, Senator 
Weicker ? 

Senator Weicker. Yes. I am through. 

Senator Baker. I think I might note for the record, I have no dis- 
agreement with my colleague or counsel, but I have some difference of 
recollection about the characterization of the rally, but the record 
itself will speak for that. 

We need not press it further ; I think the testimony has been useful. 

Are there other questions, jNIr. Lenzner ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Senator, I just wanted to add also that we felt that 
after we did investigate this incident in California, that in view of 
the fact we did confirm that some campaign resources had been used, 
we felt the committee might want to review that in terms of whether 
that was appropriate for campaigning under our mandate to use re- 
sources, even though it was a peaceful demonstration, to participate 
in any kind of demonstration, and that comes within the legislative 
purposes of this committee. 

Senator Baker. Thank you very^ much, Mr. Lenzner. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I just wanted to ask one other question. 

INIr. Stearns, I asked prior, based on INIr. Taugher's recollection and 
Mrs. INIacKenzie's, that you were present during that conversation. We 
did discuss yesterday, and I think on October 3, you had been there, 
or you had recollected you had been there, as they recollect, what 
would your reaction have been in terms of making recommendations 
to that group of people, what resources the headquarters could supply 
to the demonstration. 

Mr. Stearxs. ]Mr. Lenzner. I really question whether that is a 
proper question. 

Mr. Lexzer. Well, you have answered it to us on prior occasions 
I and T wonder why you don't want to answer it today. 

Mr. Stearxs. I am in a public session. I don't feel that I am here 
to speculate on things that didn't happen — to the best of my recollec- 
tion didn't happen. 


Mr. Lenzner. Can you make any recommendation to this commit 
tee in terms of legislation as to whether 

Mr. Stearns. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner [continuing]. As to whether legislation ought to be 
enacted on the issue of the use of resources by a political campaign 
to aid a demonstration, peaceful or nonpeaceful. 

Mr. Elliott. There are substantial constitutional questions in any 
type" of legislation- 

Senator Baker. Just one moment. I don't mean to press the wit- 
ness nor to disagree unnecessarily with counsel, but I suggest, unless 
there is disagreement by my colleagues, that a hypothetical question 
based on facts in the record to underlie the opinion of a witness as to 
the desirability or undesirability of the enactment of legislation by 
Congress is a proper question. 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. The only question is, he had been asked for a legal 
conclusion, there are constitutional problems with that type of legisla- 
tion. In that context he is certainly free to answer your question but I 
just wanted to make sure that is the context in which we answer it. 

Senator Baker. It is the witness' prerogative to answer the ques- 
tion but the Chair rules the question is admissible. 

Mr. Stearns. I certainly want to make clear if I answer I am 
answering on a clearly hypothetical basis on events which I do not 
recollect happening. I was in full accord with the policy of the cam- 
paign that the Senator had made clear, that everyone in respofisibil- 
ity, had made clear ; we made clear we assumed everybody in the cam- 
paign knew what our policy was. Even in the most elementary political 
sense of political tactics it could not have been in our interest to run 
the risk of being associated with any violent demonstrations. 

Now, in terms of the legislative recommendation, I again have only 
begun a legal education but I agree with my counsel that I think you 
are skirting an area where there are serious constitutional issues that 
should be raised. 

Now, by your question were you asking me generally what I thought 
the recommendations ought to be? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes, particularly in view of the fact you said the ! 
policy was well understood, despite it being well understood, it was a 
de minimis application of resources by the campaign for peaceful dem- 

I am asking now, is that in your opinion, an area that this committee 
ought to review for possible legislation or some other suggestion? 

Mr. Stearns. I think you should review it with the constitutional in- 
hibitions in mind, but the warning that I would make is that you are 
very close now to talking about legislating people's attitudes and con- 
duct. I don't think decency really can be legislated. I think decency 
can be inspired by example. I think there are other reforms that can be 
made in the political system in this country that will encourage again 
by their exemplary nature, a decent kind of politics. 

I think the most obvious one is — T think it was a bill that I was very 
familiar within the campaign — was the Campaign Finance Act of 1971 
which made a great step, I think, toward placing restrictions on the 
way money was raised and the way money was used in a campaign. I 
think the next logical step and the one that I Avould like to see take 


place is a move to some full kind of Federal financing of Federal cam- 
paigns. I think that would be the most heartening step that this com- 
mittee could recommend in terms of legislation. 

But I do think when you get into the question of attempting to 
legislate what people think or their standard of decency I think it be- 
comes a very difficult issue, and I agree there are some constitutional 
questions I think ought to be considered in that regard. 

Mr. Lexzner. I agree with that. I am wondering whether we could 
get your views in writing later, perhaps after you have had some 
thought, as to whether we can deal with, not the question of legislating 
people's thoughts and ideas, but on the question of the use of resources 
based on campaign contributions in a campaign, whether it is in this 
situation or in the situation we had with prior witnesses, of using cam- 
paign contributions to employ people like Mr. Segretti, Benz, and 
Kelly, and that is what I am focusing on. 

Mr. Stearxs. Yes. I understand. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Thank you. 

Senator Baker. ]VIr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Chairman, just one or two more questions. In 
that line obviously there is some disagreement as to the propriety of 
using resources in this manner. I might make the observation that it 
would appear that Mr. Hass, the McGovern people in California, had 
some reservations about the wisdom or propriety of it, from their re- 
action to it in stating that as soon as it was found out about it was 
stopped. I think that is a fair observation to make, and I look at your 
own testimony in executive session, and you state 

Mr. Elliott. What page are you on ? 

Mr. Thompsox. On page 44.1 wnll start back on page 43 at line 20: 

Mr. LiEBENGooD. First. let me ask you this : Do you know any instance when 
a local McGovern campaign organization participated in a demonstration against 
the President during the campaign? 

Mr. Stearns. If the question is, "Do I know of any place the McGovern cam- 
paign participated in or McGovern campaign organization participated in or 
promoted as a matter of policy a demonstration," the answer is no. 

Mr. LiEiBENGOOD. What was the basis for that policy? 

Mr. Steahns. Well, it was our feeling that one of the major difficulties we 
had, I mean just from a tactical point of view, with McGovern's acceptability 
was the association which had developed in the minds of some McGovern mili- 
tant protests, so obviously this is a matter of political tactics. Any demonstration 
that was conducted, particularly if it was in any way identified with McGovern, 
had to work against our benefit. That was certainly the tactical consideration 
for the policy and I think there were probably ethical considerations that 
would have come into play at that point, too. 

Is it an unjust inference to conclude that there a consideration 
of propriety in your own mind with regard to this kind of activity? 

Mr. Ste.\rxs. I mean you are repeating something that I have al- 
ready — I said in response, I think to your earlier question. 

Mr. Thompsox. Indulge me, if you would, and repeat it again. 

Mr. Stearxs. All right, I will repeat it exactlv as it is here, the 
question is: "Do I know of any place that the McGovern campaign 
participated in, or McGovern campaign organization participated in 
or promoted as a matter of policy, demonstrations?" The answer is 

Mr. Thompson. What I am asking you is what kind of ethical con- 
siderations would have come into play at that point ? 


What did you mean by that statement ? 

Mr. Si'EARNS. I think I said that ethical considerations would prob- 
ably come into play at that point. My testimony has been that ethical 
considerations did not come into play because I cannot recollect this 
incident that you are talking about. I am saying as a matter of policy 
we did not organize or promote demonstrations nor would have. 

Mr. Thompson. That is not responsive to my question. I concede 
your testimony is that it was not policy to do that, that your testi- 
mony is that you did not promote that, that you did not condone or 
approve that. 

But we have had discussion here as to the propriety of it and you 
have addressed yourself to that before and I am wondering, and I 
am referring to Mr. Hass' statement and the McGovern statement 
about cutting it off, and so forth; I refer to your OAvn previous testi- 
mony that ethical considerations would have to come into play prob- 
ably, probably on that point. 

Now. if you consider that this is a proper campaign activity, not 
from the standpoint of a person having a right to parade or demon- 
strate if he wishes to do so peacefully, which is ol3viously constitu- 
tionally protected, but from one political organization's standpoint 
against another, you state here that there were probably some ethical 
considerations that would have to come into play at some point. 

Would you elaborate on that ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes. I think a kind of ethical consideration, had I 
been, as Mr. Haldeman was, in a campaign in which he received a 
memo Avhich said 100 people were going to produce obscene signs at 
a rally of the President in 1971, I think in North Carolina, and 
against the Reverend Billy Graham, and if I took that memorandum 
and wrote "good" in one column and I wrote "great'' also next to it, 
I think that certainly some ethical consideration comes into play. That 
would be an ethical consideration. 

Mr. Thompson. I agree a good defense is a good offense but what 
was in your mind ? 

Mr. Stearns. I had never • 

i\Ir. Thompson. What ethical considerations were you referring to 
when you stated that they might come into play ? 

Mr. Stearns. No one ever gave me a memo 

]Mr. Thompson. I am not asking you. 

Mr. Stearns [continuing]. Saying we were going to play- 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Stearns, if you tell me you do not wish to 
answer that question then I will drop the question. You haven't yet. 

Mr. Stearns. I just don't understand. 

Mr. Thompson. I am reading from your own testimony, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. Stearns. I have given you an example of an ethical 

Mr. Thompson. You referred to it yourself; what did you have in 
mind when you were referring to it ? 

Mr. Stearns. Just that. 

Mr. Thompson [reading]. "There was certainly the tactical consid- 
eration for the policy and I think there was probably considerations 
that would come into play at that point, too." 

Mv. Stearns. Yes, and I just gave you an example of an ethical 
consideration that would come into play. 


Mr. Thompson. What ethical consideration would come into play 
if this Avas used in the jNIcGovern telej^hone bank, which was the ques- 
tion you were asked? 

Mr. Stearns. I don't recall ever being at a point at which that 
fthical consideration was posed to me. 

]Mr. Thompson. What were you referring to in your testimony ? 

Mr. Stearns. What I just described to you. 

Mr. Thompson. What, Mr. Haldeman's memo? 

Mr. Stearns. I am sorry. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Haldeman's memorandum, is that what you are 
referring to ? 

Mr. Stearns. You asked for a kind of ethical consideration. 

Mr. Thompson. I asked for the kind of ethical consideration that 
you had in mind when you referred to it here. You are stating that 
there was no question in your mind at the time you gave this testi- 
mony as to the propriety of the matter. 

Mr. Manning. "\Miicli matter are you talking about, Mr. Thompson ? 

Mr. Thompson. I am talking about the question I read. 

Mr. ]NL\NNiNo. Yes, you said the phone banks and the question does 
not say anything about the phone banks, the question is: "Do you 
know of any instance when a local McGovern compaign organization 
promoted or participated in a demonstration against the President, 
against the campaign?" 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 

Mr. ]VLa.nnino. You read Mr. Stearns' answer and he has given you 

Mr. Thompson. I assume that the use of the phone bank would be 
promoting or participating in. 

]Mr. Elliott. Is your question then, sir, whether the use of the 
telephone is unethical ? 

Mr. Thompson. My question is what he had in mind when he re- 
ferred to the general overall policy as not being a wise policy from 
a tactical standpoint; what ethical consideration he was talking about. 

Mr. Stearns. I said all of the following ethical considerations 
come into play and I said if anyone were in a situation where they 
were encouraging hostile behavior, encouraging obscenity, encourag- 
ing violent demonstrations, that is an ethical consideration. That is 
what I had in mind at that point. 

Mr. Thompson. Are you aware of a typewritten document entitled 
"The Muskie Accountability Project" which was written by Mr. 
Stewart Mott ? 

Mr. Stearns. Yes, a copy of that was mailed to me during the cam- 
paign, and a copy of it M'as shown to me by one of the assistant coun- 
sels in the October 3 — no, the prior one, at one of the two interviews. 

Mr. Thompson. This refers to Senator Muskie as, I believe among 
other things, a liar, and that his father was a draft dodger and, as I 
understand, was prepared bv Mr. Mott himself. 

A^lio is Mr. Mott ? 

ISIr. Stearns. Mr. Mott describes himself as a philanthropist. I 
think he lived in New York — lives in — I think has moved to Wash- 
ington, D.C As I understand it he is one of the heire to the General 
Motors fortune. He is a gentleman with, you know, his own interests 
and predilections in politics. As T explained, and I have given you a 
copy of the document you asked for, I explained why we would not 


have used material like that and I explained then, the reason we 
didn't is that we had — we obviously had — done our own homework, 
we didn't need anyone on his own initiative to supply us with material. 

Mr. Thompson. Pardon me. Did you have any personal contact with 
Mr. Mott during the campaij^n^ 

Mr. Stearns. Yes, but not on any matter that related to Senator 
Muskie. At one time Mr. Mott sponsored a meeting' between the 
Lindsay, Chisholm, and ISIcCarthy forces of which I was one of the 
McGovern representatives, and at that time we tried to discuss ways 
in which we could minimize hostility at least among those four groups 
which were seen as the liberal wing of the party. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you provide any documentation or any in- 
formation whatsoever with regard to Senator Muskie's voting record 
to Mr. IMott? 

Mr. Stearns. Not to the best of my knowledge, but if he had asked 
for it I certainly would have given it to him. You have seen a copy 
of the material I prepared, it was taken mostly from the votes pro- 
duced by the Senate itself. It is a matter, a factual description, 
Senator IMuskie's voting record, a summary to it, and in fact as I re- 
call, on a number of points I commend Senator Muskie's record, in 
fact a couple of places stating his record was better than Senator 
McGovern's in some respects; it was completely neutral and very pro- 
fessionally done, although I cannot vouch for the mistakes. I reviewed 
1,600 or 2,000 votes over a 7-year period but you have a copy of that. 

INIr. Thompson. Did you have a discussion with ISIr. INIott after the 
Muskie accountability project came out about it? 

]Mr. Stearns. To the best of my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Thompson. Thank you. No further questions. 

INIr. ]M AN NINO. May we request the IVIuskie memorandum be made 
a part of the record? It was supplied after the executive session and 
I think it may be relevant. 

Mr. Stearns. May I also request I get the original back, it is the 
only one I have. 

Mr. Thompson. I have no objection. I do not have it in my posses- 

Senator Ervin. How long a memorandum is it ? 

Mr. Stearns. I am sony, sir? 

Senator Ervin. How long a memorandum is it? 

Mr. Stearns. I think it is too long to — I tliink it is a waste of the 
taxpayer's money — I think it runs 140 pages. I would suggest — there 
are two summaries attaclied to the end; one Senator McGovern's 
record and one Senator Muskie's record, those are only about 12 pages, 
that might l>e the section to be included. 

Senator Ervin. Let the summary of the Muskie record be entered 
as an exhibit. It is my understanding that the McGovern record is not 

[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 242.*] 

Mr. ^Iannino. Thank you. Senator. 

Senatoi- Ervin. Senator ]\rontoya. 

Senator ^NTontota. No questions. 

Senator Eratn. "Well, thank you veiy much. You are excused. 

The committee stands in i-ecess until 2 o'clock. 

•See p. 4744. 


[Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 p.m., thi > same day.] 

Afternoox Session, Thursday, October 11, 1973 

• Senator Montoya [presiding]. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Dash, will you call the first witness? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, Mr. Frank Mankiewicz. 

Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, will you raise your right hand? 
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; so help you God? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I do. 

Mr. Dash. ]Mr. Mankiewicz, I understand that you are here without 
subpena and voluntarily appearing as a witness before this com- 


Mr. Mankiewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. And you do not have counsel with you ? 

]Mr. Mankiewicz. I do not. 

Mr. Dash. Do you have a statement to read to the committee? 

Mr. ]Mankiewicz. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Dash. Would you read that statement, please ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
am happy to have this opportunity to testify before your committee to 
present this statement and to answer an}^ questions I can about the 
1972 campaign. 

We have all heard, thanks to these hearings and other investigations, 
both public and private, of a wide variety of "dirty tricks," of sabotage 
and of espionage and of an unprecedented assault on the integrity of 
the political process itself. I should like to take this opportunity to 
describe what is, in my view, one of the most serious of these assaults — 
one of the most dangerous of all the attempts to cover up what was 
done by the Nixon campaign in 1972. 

I refer to the systematic attempt by administration witnesses before 
this committee, either presently in the WHiite House, recently in the 
AVhite House, or controlled either by the White House or the Nixon 
campaign, to convey to the American people the idea that the actions 
I of which they were admittedly or proved guilty, are somehow acts 
common to American politics and political campaigns. 

I think it imjiortant for someone to state, clearly and firmly, that 
these "dirty tricks" are not politics as usual — that American politics 
does not include any history of, or tolerance for sabotage, espionage, 
perjury, forgery or burglary. The political process does not, and has 
not, countenanced firebombing of Government institutions or the slan- 
dering of an opponent by accusing him of sexual misconduct — or, to 
be sure, slandering the memory of a slain President by the use of a 
forgery which accuses him of murder. American "politics as usual" 
does not include stealing documents from an opponent in order to 
photograph and pass them on to favored journalists, nor plotting to 
kidnap those with whom you may disagree — nor does it traditionally 
include wiretapping or bugging, the throwing of stinkbombs, or hiring 
people to creat disturbances or riots in the name of your opponent. 
And it has certainly never included — at the Presidential level — using 


agencies of Government to harass and punish your "enemies" nor the 
use of special White House gumshoes to count the bottles in a Senator's 

Senator Moxtoya. INlr. Mankiewicz, we have a roll call on the floor, 
so I am going to have to recess the hearing. 


Senator IMontoya. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, do you wish to continue your statement? 

If you want to go back a sentence or two to get your context, you 

Mr. ^Mankiewicz. "Politics as usual" has certainly never included 
using agencies of Goverimient to harass and punish one's enemies nor 
the use of special White House gumshoes to count the bottles in a 
Senator's trash. 

There is grave danger in all this. I think we are strong enough as a 
Nation to survive Watergate and the crimes with which that word is 
now forever associated ; I doubt if we are strong enough to survive for 
very long the widespread belief that those actions are tlie normal things 
to expect in the practice of electoral politics. And yet, we have seen — 
over the past months — one witness after another proclaim the notion 
that "both sides do it," that "this is typical politics," or that somehow 
the Nixon people's activities were justified because "the other side" had 
done the same things. This steady stream can have been no accident. 
And if it is believed, then the already lowered esteem which many now 
have for our political system will sink even lower, and the final 
Watergate dirty trick will have been played — on all of us. 

Let me cite only one example. In his prepared testimony, H. R. 
Haldeman listed the following — and I quote now from his testimony : 

Violent demonstrations and disruption, heckling or shouting down speakers, 
burning or bombing campaign headquarters, physical damage or trashing of, 
headquarters and other buildings, harassment of candidates' wives and families i 
by obscenities, disruption of the national convention by splattering dinner guests 
with eggs and tomatoes, indecent exposure, rock throwing, assaults on dele-' 
gates, slashing bus tires, smashing windows, setting trash fires under the gas . 
tank of a bus, knocking policemen from their motorcycles. 

Mr. Haldeman then went on to charge that these were — 

all activities which took place in 1072 — against the campaign of the President 
of the United States by his opponents. Some of them took place with the clear 
knowledge and consent of agents of the opposing candidate in the last election ; 
others were acts of people who were clearly unsympathetic to the President I 
but may not have had direct orders from the opposing camp." 

Now that statement is false in whole and in each part. There is: 
no activity listed there which had the knowledge and consent of any 1 
agent of the McGovern campaign, and no evidence of any kind has i 
been presented — or ever will be presented, for none exists — to the 
contrary. Furthermore. Ave now know, from testimony before this 
committee, that some o those acts were in fact committed by agents 
of the Nixon campaign — agents provocateurs, hired for that purpose. 

And from Mr. Haldeman's wi-itten expression that some prospec- 
tive violence at a Nixon rally was both, in his words "good" and " 
"great," we can onlv conclude that more of that kind of activity was 
actually promoted by the Nixon campaign itself. 


But Mr. Chairman, Mr. Haldeman did more. He attempted, on 
more than one occasion — according to memorandums in evidence 
here — ^to "leak" to favored newsmen the story that the McGovern 
campaign was financing these activities — this violence — and that it 
was itself financed by sinister foreign sources. Now when he made 
those statements, Mr. Haldeman knew them to be false — but they are 
widely believed nevertheless. 

"\^niat I am trying to express here is that this kind of activity, and 
all of the illegal and unethical activity we have heard described here, 
is not typical of American politics at all. None of it was done in the 
Democratic campaign of 1972. In the campaign with which I am 
most familiar — that of Senator McGovern's — I can state categori- 
cally that it was wholly free of each and all of the dirty tricks, the 
crimes, the deceits and the coverups the Nation has now learned 
were committed in behalf of his opponent. 

Furthermore, I am prepared to state, based on my own knowledge 
as well as extensive recent research, that it was also not "politics as 
usual" in the other Democratic campaigns of 1972 — such as those 
of Senator Humphrey, Senator Muskie, Senator Jackson and Mayor 
Lindsay — and that this kind of politics has not been present in other 
Democratic or Kepublican presidential campaigns. This kind of activ- 
ity may well be "politics as usual" for Nixon campaigns, but not for 
any other Democratic or Republican presidential campaign of which 
I have any knowledge. And I believe it to be the gravest disservice 
to the Republic to suggest that it is. 

As to the effect on the 1972 campaign of the so-called "dirty tricks" 
they would appear to have been successful. The purpose of it all — the 
slimy letters, the forged press releases, the fake leaflets — seems to 
have been not to influence the result of any single primary election, but 
to create within the Democratic Party such a strong sense of resent- 
ment among the candidates and their followers as to make unity of the 
party impossible once a nominee was selected. At that, the effort seems 
to have been most successful. 

Workers in Senator Muskie's campaign have told me that they 
believed the "dirty tricks" played on Senator Muskie in New Hamp- 
shire to have been the work of the McGovern campaign. Certainly 
there must have been those Humphrey and Jackson partisans who, 
seeing the filthy letter about their candidates in Florida, forged so as 
to appear to be from the Muskie campaign, must have turned their 
anger on the Senator f roui Maine. 

This was, I believe, particularly true in the later stages of the 
primary campaign. Deliberately false statements about Senator Mc- 
Govern's position on such matters as the legalization of marihuana, 
amnesty, abortion, and even the legalization of prostitution were put 
out in Ohio. NebrasKa. and California, and they were made to seem 
the work of the campaigns — or even the statements of the candidates 
themselves — of Senators Jackson and Humnhrey. In California, leaf- 
lets deliberately distorting the record and maligning the character of 
Senators Humphrey and McGovern were issued in the name of the 
other, rival candidate. Thus both Senator McGovern and Senator 
Humphr-ey were led to believe that the other was involved in a vicious 
campaign of distortion and vilification, and any reuniting of fac- 
tions — normally the course in a Democratic campaign after the pri- 
maries — became far more difficult. I think it is a reasonable question 


whether Senator Humphrey would have lent himself to the so-called 
California Challenoe in June and July of 1972 had he not become 
convinced — because of the Nixon campaio:n's planned sabotage — that 
Senator McGovern's cainpaio-n had attacked him unfairly in May. 

We know that an insultino; telephone call was placed to AFL-CIO 
President George Meany in June by someone masquerading as the 
McGovern campaign manager, Gary Hart. How much of Mr. Meany's 
hostility to Senator ^NIcGovern's campaign can be attributed to this 
or other such incidents is difficult to measure. So. for that matter, is 
the impact of numerous similar fake telephone calls to local union 
and party officials during the fall camnaign, all of an insulting nature 
and all from i)eople purporting to be McGovern campaign officials. 

In short, what was created by the sabotage effort was an unparalleled 
atmosphere of rancor and discord within the Democratic Party. And, 
as Mr. Segretti perha]:)S unwittingly revealed before this committee, 
that was the aim — and the only aim — of the campaign of illegal and 
unethical acts which he largely executed, but which had been carefully 
conceived by the various assistants, counsels, special assistants and 
special comisels to the President of the United States. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, for the record, and the committee's 
purpose, would you briefly state your professional background leading 
up to your career in political activities? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I have an undergraduate degree from the Uni- 
versity of California at Los Angeles in the class of 1947, along with 
Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman [laughter], the class the stars fell 
on. I have a degree in journalism from the Columbia University 
School of Journalism, and a law degree from the University of Cali- 
fornia at Berkeley. 

I practiced law in Los Angeles from 1955 through 1961, and in 
1961 I went in the Peace Corps. I was the comitry director in Peru 
for 2 years and the Latin Ameiican regional director for 2 years. From 
1966 to the middle of 1968, I was press secretai-y to Senator Robert 
Kennedy. I worked briefly at the Democratic convention in 1968 in 
behalf of Senator McGovern. Thereafter I was, in collaboration with 
Tom Braden, a syndicated columnist and telcA^ision commentator until 
1971. and in May of 1971 I joined Senator ]\rcGovern's campaign 
through the election of 1972. 

My political activity began, I suppose, in California. In 1950 I was 
a candidate for the State legislature. Thereafter I was elected to and 
became active in the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Com- 
mittee and Avas active in a variety of ways as volunteer in a number of ; 
Presidential and statewide campaigns in California. But my sort of 
official political activity consisted of service in the campaign of Sen- 
ator Kennedy in 1968, briefly of Senator ^McGovern's in 1968, and as 
the political director of Senator McGovern's campaign in 1971 and 

Mr. Dash. Could you state briefly what vour function was in that 
last role vou plaved during the Presidential campaign of 1972 for 
Senator McGovern ? 

Mr. Maxkieavicz. No. 

Mr. Dash. You can't say it briefly ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I cannot say it briefly. 

Mr. Dash. Just give us a brief outline. ^. 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. In general x\ 



Mr. Dash. I know you worked very hard, Mr. Mankiewicz. 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. As I think Mr, Stearns indicated this morning, 
the table of organization was not as liard and fast as perhaps people 
believe in a Presidential campaign. In general, I was the inside man 
of the McGovern campaign through the convention. I was involved in 
financing, raising funds, to some extent checking on expenditures, 
media, press, a variety of things in the national headquarters until 
the convention, and from the convention on I traveled with Senator 
IMcGovern's traveling pai'ty and was gone probably 5 or 6 days a week. 
Those in general, were my responsibilities. 

Mr. Dash. Perhaps, as I just continue with some of the other ques- 
tions, you may be able to indicate your response with regard to a par- 
ticular function, which may further elaborate on what you were doing 
during the campaign. 

What I would like to do, Mr. Buchanan, is to get your reaction to 
certain evidence that is already before the committee. [Laug-hter.] 

Mr. Mankiew^icz. The laughter is because you called me Mr. Bu- 
chanan, I think. 

Mr. Dash. I am sorry, but the buzzers sometimes interrupt the 
thinking processes. 

As a matter of fact, the slip was perhaps because I am going to be 
referring some Buchanan memos to you. Did you, bj^ the way, hear 
the testimony of j\Ir. Buchanan ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes. I did. 

Mr. Dash. What I would like to have you do, Mr. Mankiewicz, is to 
react to some of the memorandums, not specifically ]\Ir. Buchanan's 
memorandums but some of the exhibits that we have had before this 
committee, primarily produced when ]Mr. Segretti testified. But by 
way of introduction, we haA'e had, through Mr. Buchanan's testimony, 
memorandums that were presented in the record, what, in effect, was 
tlie grand strategy of the Republican Party in the campaign of 1972. 
I want to make it very clear that the strategies as presented in the 
Buchanan memorandums are not intended to be presented at this 
time nor were they intended to be presented earlier when INIr. Bu- 
chanan was a witness for the purpose of indicating any wrongdoing 
or perhaps unethical or improper conduct, but perhaps to demonstrate 
political strategy that was, in fact, set down from the memorandums, 
and was later implemented by certain agents such as Segretti and the 
agents who worked for him. 

Now, in a memorandum which was dated March 24. 1971,* which is 
a part of this record, addressed to the President from Mr. Buchanan, 
entitled "The Muskie Watch," it is made clear by Mr. Buchanan that 
the effort of the campaign should be to identify the front runner, 
which was Senator Muskie, and to use the resources of the Republican 
Party to affect his chances in the primary in such a way as to have him 
not come out as the Democratic candidate. One of the strategies sug- 
gested by Mr. Buchanan was, on page 3 of that memorandum, that the 
attack siiould come not from the right but between the center and the 
left of the Democratic Party : it should focus on those issues that divide 
Democrats, not those that unite Republicans. It should exacerbate and 
elevate those issues on which Democrats are divided, forcing Muskie 
to either straddle or come down on one side or the other. 

•See exhibit No. 170, Book 10, p. 4146. 


Then, a number of those issues are later identified on page 4 — a spe- 
cial reference, by the way, to Mr. Muskie's personality as an individual 
who perhaps cannot react under pressure, and the racial issue, his 
stand on abortion, and some others. 

Then further on, in a memorandum that was prepared by Mr. 
Buchanan and identified by him for the record, addressed to the Attor- 
ney General and Mr. Halcleman entitled "Dividing the Democrats,''* 
Mr. Buchanan set forth some strategies, during the primaries, of what 
acts should be followed or take place in order to divide the Democrats, 
and a number of things such as supporting sort of liberal or leftwing 
positions of the Democrats rather than rightwing positions. 

Then, on page 5 of that memorandum is a recommendation that top- 
level consideration should be given to ways and means to promote, 
assist, and fund the fourth party candidacy of the left Democrats and 
of the black Democrats. [Reading :] 

There is nothing tliat can so advance tlie president's chances for reelection, 
not a trip to China and not a 4i/^-percent unemployment rate, as a realistic black 

Black complaints : As we did with Muskie, we should continue to champion the 
cause of the blacks within the Democratic Party, elevate their complaints as 
being taken for granted. 

Finally, another memorandum that I want to refer to is a memoran- 
dum of April 12, 1972, from ]Mr. Buchanan to John Mitchell and 
Haldeman** which states in its opening paragraph: 

Our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early 
primaries, locking up the convention in April, and uniting the Democratic Party 
behind him for the fall, has been achieved, and the likelihood, great 3 months 
ago, that the Democratic convention could become a dignified coronation cere- 
mony for a central candidate who would lead a united party into the election is 
now remote. 

My reference in that memorandum, Mr. Mankiewicz, to Senator Mc- 
Govern's candidacy — on page 8 of that memorandum : "Our next goal 
is the caption : 'What we need now is a decision on whom we want to 
run against. We believe that INIcGovern is our candidate for dozens of 
reasons,' *' as set forth in his memorandum. 

He closes that memorandum by saying : 

McGovern has a long shot at the nomination, a very long shot, but if he wins, 
we win. Let us let him have his run at the nomination and assist him in every 
way we can. Today he gets .5 percent of the Democratic vote nationally and R.N. 
swamps liim in the polls and people do not yet know what a wild man he is. 
McGovern is the one. 

Now, that was Mr, Buchanan. He identified these memorandums, 
and generally that this was various political strategy recommended 
by him. He did not indicate that he himself had any operational role 
but was an idea man. 

Before the committee, we have had testimony from Mr. Donald 

Did you ever come across the name of Donald Segretti during the 
1972 campaign, Mr. Mankiewicz ? 

Ml-. Af.xxKiEwirz. Xot until T began to read about him in the Wash- 
in<rton Post. 

♦See exhibit No. 170. Book 10. p. 4197. 
**See exhibit No. 183. Book 10. p. 4226. 


Mr. Dash. That was after the campaio;n, \Yas it not? 

Mr. Maxkiewigz. I do not think so. I think it was 

Mr. Dash. Xo. I am son-y ; October is tlie hrst time. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes. 

jNIr. Dash. Did you ever come across the name of Donald Simmons 
or any other Republican operative in the California campaign or the 
Florida campaign? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No; but I believe our California headquarters 
turned up a volunteer card that Mr. Segretti had signed during the 

Mr. Dash. We have testimony from Mr, Segretti, and it is already 
in tlie record that he was hired by Mr. Chaj^tin, the President's ap- 
pointments secretary, to hire agents and go into a covert operation to 
infilti-ate campaigns and to produce demonstrators, pickets, and a 
number of other activities that would specifically, as a strategy — 
in Donald Segretti's testimony before this committee — divide Demo- 
cratic candidates4n the primary, and that his assignment was to go to 
the A^arious important primary States and enlist the aid of those 
agents in those States. 

I think I have given you a copy of the exhibits which were part of 
the record when Mr. Segretti testified and were entered in the record, 
and you have them before you. If you would turn to your tab 2 
[previously entered as committee exhibit Xo. 200 and appears in 
"Rnnk 10, p. 4269] in that list of exhibits, Mr. Mankiewicz. 

Mr. INIaxkiewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. You will see a memorandum which has already been 
made a part of this record, which is a blind memorandum. It has 
no name attached. But Mr. Segretti testified that he received this 
mpuiorandum from Mr. Chapin, and that it reads: 

From now on. we want to have at least one Muskie sign in among demonstra- 
tors who are demonstrating against the President. It should be Muskie for 
President in big letters and should be held in locations so that it is clearly visible. 
At Muskie events or events by other Democratic hopefuls, there should be a sign 
or two which goads them. For example, at a INIuskie rally, there should be a 
large "Why not a black Vice President" or perhaps. "We prefer Humphrey." or 
sometliing else that would goad him along. At Humphrey rallies, there would be 
Muskie signs ; and at Kennedy rallies, there should be Muskie or Humphrey 
signs ; and so on. These signs should be well placed in relationship to the press 
areas so a picture is easy to get. 

X"ow, Mr. Segretti has testified that he followed this advice. In any 
of the primaries that you are aware of, did you see any of the evi- 
dence that this particular reconnnendation actually was carried out? 

Mr. Max'kiewicz. "Well, I think there were a number of demonstra- 
tions of it. I think, Mr. Dash, that in reference to those Buchanan 
memorandums, the point ought to be made that people who give 
political advice, particularly over a period of years, as Mr. Buchanan 
did to the President and as I have done on at least one occasion, and per- 
haps two — really two — there is a tendency as events develop to make 
them self-confirming and to point out that what has happened is not 
only what you predicted but what you brought to pass. I have a feeling 
that some of the claims in the Buchanan memorandums are somewhat 
excessive, and that Mr. Buchanan, being a political realist, would prob- 
ably concur that it does very little to send a memorandum to your prin- 
cipal, saying: "Everything I told you back in September has turned 
out to be wrong." It provides a better flow to put it the other way. 


I mention that because on April 11, when ]Mr. Buchanan was say- 
ing, "Our objective to weaken Senator INIuskie," or whatever it was 
that you have just read, "has now been accomplished." There is a sug- 
gestion there that he had accomplished it. I have a feeling that it was 
accomplished by other forces, and indeed. Mr. Buchanan so testified. 

It is also significant that, I think, at the time that he was saying, 
"We must now give Senator INIcGovern a run at the nomination on the 
11th of April," Senator McGovern was indeed the leading candidate 
and that it was also about that time, as I recall — perhaps a situation 
where the right hand didn't know what the left was doing — that Mr. 
Hunt was transferring an honor student from Brigham Young from 
his spying at the ]Muskie campaign, into performing the same func- 
tion at the ]\IcGovern campaign. 

Bvit all through the primaries, we saw this kind of activity that is 
related in the Chapin memorandum, beginning early in the New 
Hampshire campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Well, during the campaign and all through the primaries, 
did it ever occur to you or Senator McGovern in any discussions with 
him or in any discussions that you had with the professional staffs of 
any of the Democratic candidates, that there was working in the pri- 
maries a Eepublican agent operative to do undercover work of this 
kind ? 

IVIr. INIankiewicz. No, it did not. As a matter of fact, I think we 
all drew the reasonable conclusion — I know that in New Hampshire, 
for example, there were a couple of things done to Senator ]Muskie. I 
have since discovered that the Muskie campaign people believed that 
the McGoA^ern campaign people had done those things. There was 
every reason to believe that ; it was a two-man race. 

In California, for example, when some of the more reprehensible 
things would appear, I would occasionally talk to the Humphrey cam- 
paign manager there and tell him that we had not done those things, 
and vice versa. But I don't think either of us believed the other, be- 
cause there was no i-eason to. 

Mr. Dash. There was not only no reason to believe that it was, per- 
haps, not you, but that the opposition — meaning the opposition party — 
who, in fact, was doing it. 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think, ]Mr. Dash, it goes to the point I made 
originally. In California, for example, if a document ap))ears as it did, 
ostensibly from a group called Democi'ats for a Peace Candidate and 
it vilifies Senator Hiunphrey, distorts his positions and makes him 
appear ludicrous and indeed the author of every atrocity in Vietnam, 
ending with My Lai, Senator Humphrey's people are going to believe 
that that is a product of his opposition. His opposition was not Mr. 
Nixon at that point but Senator ]\IcGovern. So the Humphrey people 
believed we did that and it was reasonable to believe that. 

Mr. Dash. You covered your statement bv saying: "This is not poli- 
tics as usual." I think it would be helpful in" the record before this 
committee to find out Avhether this is true or not. You have also, by the 
way. engaged in i-esearch. 

The testimony before us is that an astute politician such as, say, 
Senator Humphrey, who has had quite a bit of experience in political 
campaigns should have been aware of the fact that this is the way 
things are done and rather than look to blame one of his oi:)ponents in 


the primary, which was a fellow Democrat — should have known that 
perha])s there was an agent from the opposition party at work. 

Now, is this true or not ? 

Mr. ^Iaxkiewicz. That is precisely the point I am trying to make, 
that if this were indeed politics as usual, if men as experienced in 
American politics as Senator Humphrey and Senator McGovern be- 
lieved that this Avas the kind of thing that went on all the time, then 
it might have occurred to them that perhaps the Xixon forces were 
doing these things. But they didn't believe that. It is not customary 
in American politics. 

If you see a vile leaflet that comes out, the assumption is that it 
comes from your opponent, if anyone, but certainly not from some 
distant campaign, particularly if it is the President of the United 
States masquerading as your opponent. 

Now, it is true that Senator Humphrey and Senator McGovern 
both were at least students of, if they had not had experience Avith, 
past Nixon campaigns. It may have been that they should have been 
more alert. But they were not. 

The point I am making is, it is not politics as usual. The ordinary 
assumption when a piece of literature like that comes out is not to 
assume that it is anything but what it appears to be. 

Mr. Dash. You have also indicated, I think, in your statement and 
in your information that you have given to the committee concern- 
ing your background and the activity you are now engaged in — I 
understand you are engaged in research and a book involving Presi- 
dential campaigns. Have you found in your research, in addition 
to your activities in political campaigns, any tradition of this kind 
of activity ? 

Mr. ]Maxkiewicz. I have talked to people Avho were active in Re- 
publican and Democratic Presidential campaigns since the fifties and 
all of them have told me that they find astonishing and dangerous the 
notion that somehow, this is done in all campaigns. People like Cliff 
White, for example, who managed the Golclwater campaign in 1964. 
I spoke to James Hagerty, who was one of the leaders in the Eisen- 
hoAver campaigns in 1952 and 1956 ; Larry O'Brien and others Avho Avere 
in the Democratic campaigns in the sixties, and they all say the same 
thing. And the expei'ience of others is the same, that this espionage, 
this deception, this putting out literature claiming to be in support of 
one candidate Avhen in fact it is financed by another, is unprecedented. 

Mr. Dash. Why don't Ave take a look at one particular example, 
Avhich I think you liaA^e referred to in your statement, Avhich Avas a 
particularly scurrilous piece of literature. It is tab 10 [previously 
entered as connnittee exhibit No. 206 and appears in Book 10, p. 4280] 
of the exhibits there that are in the record and Mr. Segretti testified 
before this committee and identified this pai-ficular item, Avhich is a 
letter that is typed on "Citizens for Muskie'' stationery, Avhich Mr. 
Segretti said that he had renrinted or rephotographed. It is pur- 
portedly a message from the Citizens for Muskie or from the Muskie 
campaign, to "felloAv Democrats." This is a letter Avhich I will not 
read here, as I did not read Avhen Mr. Segretti Avas here, out of 
respect for both Senators Humphrey and Jackson, and also Senator 
Muskie. But this is the letter AAdiich falsely accused Senators Jackson 
and Humphrey of serious sexual misconduct and other acts which 
would be quite shocking to the felloAv Democrats Avho received it. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 16 


i\Ir. Seoretti said that lie not only photographed and made up the 
stationery from copies he had, but actually made up the letter, made 
up the names, and it was an entirely false statement; that none of 
the accusations ^vere true and that not a large number were distributed ; 
but he saw to it that the candidates and their start's got it. 

Xow, you have that before you. A^^ere you aware, by the way, of this 
particular "(^itizens for Muskie" letter that circulated in Florida? 

Mr. Maxkiewkz. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Dash. Can you give us a brief description of the impact of that 
letter in the Florida prinuiry among the candidates, as you knew it as 
a woik'er in that election ? 

Mr. Mankikwicz. Well, I think there were two reactions to it. T 
think there may have been some people who thought that since it said 
Citizens for jNIuskie, it had come from the official Muskie organization. 

But I doubt that there were very many people who thought that, 
because the letter is so vile that someone would have had to be rather 
ignoiant of Senator Muskie's record and the standing of the people 
who worked for him to assume that. I think the general feeling was that 
some low-level Muskie operative, perhaps, had in an unauthorized way 
taken some of his own campaign stationery and made up this thing. 

But I think there were also others who probably thought that since 
this was a letter which simultaneously defamed Senator Jackson, 
Senator Hum]ihrey, and Senator Muskie for having circulated it, that 
perhaps the letter was prepared by still a fourth candidate who Vvould 
benefit from these people being smeared, namely. Senator McGovern. 

Mr. Dash. Did you in fact have that kind of accusation made against 
you ? 

Mr. Mankieavicz. Some of the ]oeople who worked for Senator 
Muskie said that was their feeling at that time. 

Mr. Dash. Do you think the letter was calculated to produce that 
result ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I am not sure it was that sophisticated, but I 
think the calculated result of this letter is that people would either 
get mad at Senator Muskie or at Senator McGovern, and that in any 

Mr. DAsrr. People did get mad, did they not? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. People would get mad, and it would create fric- 
tion or rancor among the Democratic candidates. It would hardly 
have been calculated to win votes. I understand they only circulated 
20 or 30 of them, but they mailed them to the right people. 

Afr. Dasit. That is correct, and this followed, as I have indicated, 
the testimony that we had from Mr. Segretti that his purpose was to 
engage in this kind of activity to divide the candidates and to create 
the bittei-ness. As a matter of fact, he said it was the usual tradition 
for the Democrats to fight in the i)rimaries but rally behind the 
candidate that comes out of the convention, 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. And his job with his agents was to soav such bitterness 
that whoever came out of the convention would not be able to get the 
others to rally around him. 

If you will look at tab (> (previouslv entei-ed as committee exhibit 
No. 158 and a|)pears in Book 10, p. 40551, this is the leaflet which 
has been introduced on at least two occasions before this committee 


and testified to on at least two occasions. It was a leaflet which lias at 
the lower left-hand corner the label "Citizens for a Liberal Alterna- 
tive." And the one that has the photograph of Senator Muskie smok- 
ing a big cigar, and a slogan "Wake up Liberals ! Is This the Man 
You Want in the Oval Office ?" 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. And such statements as "Muskie added himself publicly 
to the list of political opportunists in opposing abortion reform. What 
kind of a man is Ed Muskie ? He is a wheeling-dealing, ward-heeling 
politician, Ed ^Muskie would be no different from the Nixons, Agnews, 
Mitcliells, Connallys we have now. He is the candidate of the Demo- 
cratic right." 

Mr. ]\Iankiewicz. I am very familiar with that leaflet. 

Mr. Dash. Did you see this leaflet during the campaign? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I saw it for the first time in New Hampshire. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware at the time you saw that leaflet that it 
was prepared, as has been testified before our hearing, by Mr. Ken 
Khachigian, Mr. Buchanan's assistant; was edited by Mr. Buchanan 
and actually was printed by the Committee for the Re-Election of the 
President ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No ; I was not aware of that. 

Mr. Dash. And also it is the testimony before this committee by jSIr. 
Porter that he paid approximately $100, I believe, to ]Mr. Roger Stone 
on one occasion to go to New Hampshire to leave a leaflet, I believe 
at Senator McGovern's headquarters. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. That is right. 

Mr. Dash. Mr, Stone has alreadv informed this committee in inter- 
views with the staff' of the committee that this particular leaflet was 
left at the McGovern headquarters. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I think it is an example, by the way, Mr. Dash, 
that the White House was playing dirty tricks on Senator McGovern 
as early as late February, even though Mr. Buchanan would place that 
at a later date. 

But this leaflet caused a lot of trouble because 

Mr. Dash. Can you describe the kind of trouble it gave you ? 

Mr. jMankiewicz. It was planted at the McGovern headquarters, I 
think, as the testimony here showed, and then a copy of it was taken, 
I believe, to the Manchester L'nion Leader, where the people at the 
Jiewspaper were told they could find it at the McGovern headquarters. 
The Muskie campaign people complained in this case to me about the 
leaflet and I must say leaving it to my impression, with a rather sink- 
ing feeling, that it had been prepared by Stewart Mott. 

Now, Mr. Mott at that time was not a McGovern supporter, but he 
was a Muskie opponent. Mr. Mott had taken on for himself the job of 
seehig tliat Senator Muskie did not win the nomination. He did not 
particuhirly care who else won it; he was making small contributions 
at the time to Senator McGovern, Congresswoman Chisholm, Senator 
McCarthy, and, I believe, Mayor Lindsay ; and lie had set uj) a number 
of committees and had sort of taken on singlehandedly the job, we 
thought, of attacking Senator Muskie. And this leaflet seemed to me 
to have his stamp on it. 

Mr. Dash. Well, the leaflet which would have a committee "Citizens 
for a Liberal Alternative" attackinc; Senator Muskie would be inter- 
preted to be supported by what candidate really ? 


Mr. M.vNKiEwicz. Well, at that time in Xew Hampshire certainly, 
only by Senator McGovern. He was the only candidate who could be 
described, I think in New Hampshire, as a libei-al alternative to Sen- 
ator McGovern or at least would have been by Stewart Mott. 

Mr. Dash. Senator Muskie. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Senator Muskie. But Mr. Mott told me he did 
not put out the leaflet, but I was convinced at that time and later that 
the Muskie campaign believed that Senator McGovern was indeed 
responsible for this leaflet. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have any occasion to see that leaflet anywhere 
else in the country ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I think we saw it also in Wisconsin, and perhaps in 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Segretti had testified 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Almost all of the primaries up to the time that 
Senator INIuskie withdrew from the race. 

Mr. Dash. The record will show Mr. Segretti has testified he 
received between 500 and 1,000 and spread them all over the primary 
States, including Galifornia, as well. 

If you will also look at tab 13 [previously entered as committee 
exhibit Xo. 209 and appears in Book 10, p. 4284], having referred 
to Mr. Mott, Mr. Segretti testified before this committee on this partic- 
ular exhibit, which was entered in the record, that he took this ad 
that Mr. ]Mott did place in various newspapers, the ad that attacks 
Senator Muskie, with tlie heading ''Disgusting: The Secret Money in 
Presidential Politics," and calls on Senator Muskie to make an ac- 
counting for the money, and he calls it the "Committee for Honesty 
in Politics." It is identified as Stewart E. Mott, chairman. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. But you will notice at the bottom there is an additional 
two paragraphs or two sentences that Mr. Segretti said he added to 
this ad, and they are: "Now he says he will disclose the fat cats 
behind him," referring to Muskie. "After he has lost badly in Florida 
and cried in New Hampshire, why is he waiting for full disclosure? 
Is it to fix up his books?" And then the last two sentences: "The com- 
mittee will look foi- your names as part of INIuskie's fat cats. They had 
better be there." The reference to that last couple of sentences is that 
this particular pamphlet, according to Mr. Sea:retti"s testimonv, was 
handed out in Los Angeles at a Muskie fundraising dinner and given 
to tlic ])eople attending that so they would see at the bottom "That 
the conunittee will look for your names as part of Muskie's fat cats 
and thev had better bo there." Were you aAvare of this pamphlet? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I was aware of the basic pamphlet l)ut not of the 
message at the bottom, or that, if it aimed directly at contributors 
of a dinner, I dare sav it might have inliibited their contribution. 

Mr. Dash. Since ]\Ir. Mott had boon identified Avith supporting ]\rr. 
McGovern, if this was being handed out by Mr. Segretti. a Republican 
agent uudei'Mr. rhapin"ssui)ervision, tlic people attendinji that dinner 
would have reason to believe what candidate was distributing it. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, they cei'taiidv would have had reason, not 
only the people attendino- tlic dinner but Senator Muskie's cami^aign 
people would have additional reason to l)olie\-e Senator McGovern 


was campaigning in an nnfair manner against Senator Muskie and 
they did so believe. 

Mr. Dash. I think you may be aware — if you will turn to tab 23. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I 'might point out, Mr. Dash, that this Committee 
for Honesty in Politics was Mr. Mott's sole creation and had no connec- 
tion at any time with tlie McGovern campaign. Indeed, periodically 
I would try to dissuade Mr. Mott from putting these ads in the news- 
papers because I felt it was of no help to the position tliat he espoused. 

Mr. Dash. Turn to tab 23 [previously entered as committee exhibit 
No. 219 and appears in Book 10, p. 4299]. You will note anoth^" 
leaflet which bears a similarity on the leaflet we have just talked about. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. What is the tab ? 

Mr. Dash. Tab 23. 

M^T. Mankiewicz. Tab 23, yes. 

Mr. Dash. This one, instead of being Muskie and instead of being 
"Citizens for a Liberal Alternative,'' is purportedly a committee called 
"Democrats Against Bossism, T. Wilson, chairman." Mr. Segretti has 
testified that he was that committee. He made it up ; and this one shows 
a picture of Senator Humphrey holding a big fish, and it shows Hum- 
phrey at the top with the slogan, "A Fishy Smell for the White 
House?" and similar anti-Humphrey statements charging him with 
bossism, linking him to bad union activities, and things of that nature. 

Did you ever come across that leaflet ? 

Mr. Mankiew^icz. Yes; I came across that in California. California 
was a two-man race. This was one of the leaflets, I tliink, that enraged 
Senator HumjDhrey and his partisans because they believed it came 
from the McGovern camp. 

There was another leaflet very similar to this in which that fish 
on the cover was present but the face of Senator Humphrey had been 
cropped and put on to the fish, and the line underneath, instead of 
saying "A Fishy Smell for the White House" said "There is Something 
Ffshy About Senator Humphrey," and instead of being from the 
"Committee Against Bossism, T. Wilson, chairman," it was called the 
"Democrats for a Peace Candidate, T. Wilson, chairman." Otherwise 
the copy was the same. 

Mr. Dash. That particular committee. Democrats for a Peace Candi- 
date, has already been testified to by Mr. Segretti as also being Mr. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Right ; and notice a bumper sticker here as tab 

Mr. Dash. Tab 20. 

Mr. M.\NKiEwicz. Tab 20 [previously entered as committee exhibit 
No. 216 and appears in Book 10, p. 4295], which says of Humphrey, 
"He Started the War, Don't Give Him Another Chance,'' and that 
is also from the Democrats for a Peace Candidate, which turned out 
to be Mr. Segretti. 

Mr. Dash. Yes; he testified he prepared the bumper sticker and he 
was that committee. 

Mr. IVfANKiE^vicz. Those things were all believed by the Humi)hrey 
people, during the California primary, to be the work of the McGovern 
cami^aign and none of our denials woidd dissuade them from that, 

Mr. Dash. How serious was the rift or bitterness that developed 
from these kinds of papere ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I believe it was very serious. There were counter- 
parts—similar-type leaflets about Senator McGovern from equally 


fictitious committees which we believed to be the product of the 
Humphrey cauipaign and we didn't believe their denials. I had a num- 
ber of close friends, political associates, who were working in the Hum- 
phrey campaign. Those friendships were severely strained in that 
campaijxn and perhaps have not been totally restored. I tliink Senator 
Humphrey and Senator McGovern themselves, who had been close 
friends prior to that campaijjn, had a considerable strain placed on 
their relationship and. as I said in my prepared statement, I have a 
feelino- it was this kind of thiiiir that made Senator Hmnphrey more 
willin<>-to support the so-called California challenoe immediately after 
the priuiary. We were no lon<>er oi)ponents: we had become enemies, 
and I think lai'o;ely as a result of this kind of activity. 

Mr. Dash. Do you also have a view as to this kind of activity which 
also attacks Senator Muskie or how it affected Senator Muskie's rela- 
tionship with Senator McGovem ? 

Mr. Maxkieavicz. I think the thing:s done here to Senator Muskie 
had a similar effect. In New Hampshire, for example, late-ni^ht phone 
calls were made from people, imitating what they believed to be the 
accent of black Americans, claimino; to be representatives of the Har- 
lem Committee for Muskie. These calls came around midni<rlit and 
were made to people in New Hampshire in areas where people ^o to 
bed considerably earlier than they do in NeAv York. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, we haven't had testimony of that par- 
ticular incident. Do you have any particular evidence as to who the 
source or what the source of that was? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I have no idea what the source was, but I know 
it was not the McGovern campaifrn, just as I know the INIcGovern 
campaign Avas not the source of the famous Canuck letter. I don't 
knoAv Avho the source was, but I think we have a pattern of activity 
here now which would at least cause the burden of proof to shift and 
require some kind of proof that it was not the work of the same people 
who put out this kind of material. 

Mr. Dash. What evidence did you have that would give you some 
reason to believe there was anvthing other than bitterness or a separa- 
tion of friendship concerning Senator Muskie's relationship Avith Sen- 
ator McGovern. especially after the California primary ? 

Mr. ]\fANKiEA\''icz. I haA'e been told that by people Avho AA'ere in 
Senator Muskie's campaign, that they believed Senator McGovern Avas 
the source of the dirty tricks against Senator Muskie, not oidy in Ncav 
Hampshire but in other primary States as well. 

I have no Avay to probe hoAv deeph' these thinsfs affected his dwision, 
but T knoAv that shortly after the California primary. Senator Muskie 
spoke here at the National Press Club and Avas Avidely belieA-ed, in- 
cluding by his campaign manager as late as midnight the night before, 
to be about to endorse Senator ^^cGoA•ern. He did not. T tliink the 
course of the 1972 campaian Avould liave been vastlv different if he 
had: as T say, I don't knoAv how much it contributed, but I certainly 
think that a man AA^ho had spent the last 4 months believino: that Sen- 
ator McGovern Avas out to insult him, to make this kind of dirt v trick, 
to make him seem the kind of person that he Avas not, Avould certainly 
be less Avilling to make that endorsement. T think it entered into that 
decision, iust like it entered into Senator Humphrey's decision to join 
in the California challenge. 



Mr. Dash. On a number of occasions, Mr. Mankiewicz, specifically 
in the testimony of Mr, Hakleman and testimony of Mr. Buchanan 
and some other witnesses, we have had the name "Dick Tuck" pre- 
sented to the committee, and references to Dick Tuck that what was 
being done here and the kind of activities that were being sponsored 
against the Democratic candidates was a Dick Tuck-type activity. 

Do you know Dick Tuck ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I know him very w^ell. 

Mr. Dash. How do you know him ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I met him, I guess, in the 1960 campaign in Cal- 
ifornia. We worked together. I guess he worked for me most of the 
time in the 1968 Robert Kennedy campaign, and he worked in the 
1972 campaign briefly. I was responsible for his being hired in the 
1972 campaign, and in the interim I see him from time to time, and I 
would say we are friends as well as associates. 

Mr. Dash. Our resolution does not permit us to really go into earlier 
campaigns other than the 1972 campaign, but knowing what Dick 
Tuck did during any campaign, including the 1972 campaign, if he 
was active, are the things that I have shown you in these exhibits which 
Mr. Segretti has identified as his handiwork, would you say or char- 
acterize these things as Dick Tuck-type activities ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, I would not ; not remotely. 

Mr. Dash. What would the difference be? What characteristic of 
these activities would not be characteristic of Dick Tuck's activities ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, in the first place, a total lack of humor. In 
the second place, these are serious, almost vicious allegations with 
respect to other candidates which Mr. Tuck has never gone into at 
all. Mr. Tuck's function really in a campaign is to amuse — to restore, 
sometimes, a needed sense of humor to a campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Did he engage in deception ? 

Mr. INIankiewicz. No ; he never engaged in deception. On the con- 
trary, no one was quicker to claim credit for the things he did than 
Dick Tuck. That was an important pait of the activity. He never de- 
ceived. It was always clear who was doing things. He was always 
around, very visible, never Avent under another name. There was a 
student down in New Hampshire which I thought Dick Tuck had done 
for us, he says he did not, but it seems to me a perfect example of 
a Dick Tuck-type activity, although somewhat a little weaker, per- 
haps, than some of the things he did, gentler maybe, but then it was 
New" Hampshire. 

Mr. Dash. AMiat was that ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. In New Hampshire when any candidate files for 
the Presidential primary, the Governor sponsors a sort of coffee-and- 
cake reception in the statehouse after the candidate has filed his papers, 
and when Senator Muskie went up there in January 1972 they had this 
reception, and as the guests finished their coffee, they all discovered 
that underneath the coffee as they turned up their cups, pasted on the 
bottom looking up at you, was a replica of a McGovern campaign 
button. Now. tliat doesn't get into the league of some of the things we 
have been talking about here. But it is in my view toward the bottom 
range of a Dick Tuck-type operation, and as a matter of fact, I called 
Dick that afternoon to congratulate him on it, and he said no, he hadn't 
done it, but I assume it was done by a disciple. 


Mr. Dash. Was Dick Tuck, in fact, hired by the McGovern campaign 
in 1972? 

Mr. Mankiewicz, He was hired in late 1971, yes; and remained with 
the campaign, I think, until around midspring of 1972. 

Mr. Dash. Was there a particular activity he recommended which 
you didn't approve ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. He did some things for us. I know it damages his 
reputation to say so, but Tuck is a good workman in, a political cam- 
paign on projects that are considered straight. He is a good research 
man and he is a good press man. He did some research for us in New 
York in the 1972 campaign, compiling some material from newspapers 
and other sources on Mayor Lindsay. He did come up with a Dick 
Tuck-type trick in 1 972 and we weren't able to do it because we didn't 
have the money and I couldn't convince other people in the campaign 
that it had high enough priority. 

Sometime in the summer of 1972 President Nixon went to John 
Connally's i-anch to meet with a number of Republican contributors at 
a big l)arbecue. They all flew in, in private airplanes, to the airstrip 
tliere and Tuck proposed to put two trucks at the airstrip, one a Brinks 
truck, and tlie other a simple wliite paneled truck with the Spanish 
words for Mexican laundry painted on the side. [Laughter.] 

He even went so far as to check with me what the precise language 
would be, but it was going to cost $500 or $600 and we couldn't spare 
the money. It was a pity. I thought it would have livened up the 
campaign [laughter] and perhaps pointed out a moral or twQ. 

Mv. Dash. Now. Mr. ISIclNIinoway has testified fairly recently to his 
activities as an infiltrator in A'arious campaigns — Senator Muskie's 
campaign in Wisconsin, Senatoi- Humphrey's campaign in Penn- 
svlvania. Senator McGovern's campaign in California, Senator INIc- 
Govern's campaign in the District of Columbia, and Senator Mc- 
Govern's headquarters in the Democratic Convention at the Doral 
Hotel in Miami. He indicated that he had a security post and that he 
was very close to a numbei- of the top McGovern workers; in fact, ac- 
tuallv sat in with Senator McGoveni in n suite on the evening of the 
California delegate vote and sat and watched TV with him. 

Did you come across or meet Michael MclNIinoway ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I have no recollection of ever meeting him. I saw 
him on television last night and he did not seem familiar to me in any 
way. I do not recall ever meeting him. 

On the other hand, people in our campaign have told me that he 
was used as a volunteer to sit at a desk on the 16th floor of the Hotel 
Doral and clear people who were going from the 16th flooi- up to the 
17th floor, which is where Senator McGovern Avas and where the Mc- 
Govern campaign nerve center was. I am pi-epared to believe that he 
was sitting there, in which case I probably saw him four or five times 
a day, but I do not remember ever having a conversation with him 
beyond perhaps an exchange of pleasantries as I passed by. 

Ml'. Dash. There are a number of buttons which Mr. McMinoway 
has testified to that campaign staff membere had and each was of suc- 
cinct importance in gaining access to certain areas in the headquarters. 
He said he had all three buttons. Actually, was there a particular 
button that oiily a few ])eople had ? 

INIr. Mankiewicz. There was a special button that the Secret Serv- 
ice issued to j^erhaps seven or eight staif people in each campaign. It 


was red before the convention and white afterward and said "1972 
Staff.'' T know he did not have one of those. 

Mr. Dasti. How many buttons all together, staff buttons? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I have no idea. There must have been all kinds of 
other buttons. 

Mr. Dash. Pie said he had all kinds of buttons. 

]Mr. Maxkiewicz. I will tell you, Mr. Dash, we were not very secu- 
rity conscious at the Doral beyond havinfj a control point to know who 
was coming up to the I7th flooi". Beyond that, people could roam 
around and did. 

Mr. Dash. For a person to receive one of the staff buttons that gave 
him access to security areas, what would be the procedure on the staff 
before such a person would be given that staff' button ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, we had a man named Anthony Borash who 
ran the security at the hotel for us and wlio probably took volunteers 
to sit at the desk and probably do a few other things to maintain some 
order. But actually, we did not care very much what went on below 
the 16th floor. "We had that control point there, and I would assume he 
would pass out the buttons. 

Mr. Dash. Would he ])ass out the buttons to everybody or just in fact 
to staff employees ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. To people who were working for him. I presume 
that button would have gotten him access to the 16th floor. But I am 
quite sure he did not spend that Monday evening with Senator 

Mr. Dash. Senator McGovern has already given Senator Montoya 
a sworn affidavit, which was read into the record this morning, that 
he has never seen Mr. McMinoway. 

]Mr. IVIaxkteW'ICZ. He might have come into that room on occasion 
to deliver a message or something like that, but beyond that, I find it 
hard to believe 

Mr. Dash. He also stated that when he was in Milwaukee, he went 
into McGovern headquarters and observed jNIcGovern workers pre- 
paring posters such as, "We want a leader, not a crybaby" and other 
types of anti-Muskie posters and that they were preparing for an anti- 
Muskie march and that he noticed there were McGovern workers who 
had demonstrated against Senator Muskie. He also noticed that there 
were IVIcGovern workers who tore off Senator Muskie signs in the 
Milwaukee area and I think also in California. 

Xow, I think prior to your appearing as a witness. I have given you 
that information and you may have actually heard his testimony. Have 
you made any effort to check to see whether- or not there is any corrob- 
oration of that in the McGovern headquarters at Milwaukee? 

]Mr. Maxkiewicz. I have. I talked to Gene Pokorney. who was direc- 
tor of the McGovern campaign in Wisconsin, and, of course, neither he 
nor I can say for sure what went on in every McGovern headquarter 
in the State at any given time. He does say that the student coordinator 
that Mr. McMinoway says he was working with was not in the Mil- 
waukee headquarters. He spent his time in Madison and Eau Claire 
and other places where there was a student population, but he says it 
is possible that that sort of thing happened, although he doubts it 

♦See exhibit 241. p. 4743. 


strongly. I find it very improbable and so does Pokorney, because at 
that point, we did not feel we were running aijainst Senator Muskie. 
All our polls and all our deleijate counts we had indicated that at that 
point, it was a two-man race for the nomination, between Senator 
McGovern and Senator Humphrey. We were afraid Senator Muskie 
was goino; to withdraw and if he did, his votes, by and larc:e, would go 
to Senator Humphrey and we were anxious to keep him in the race. I 
think it most improbable that McGovern people would have done any- 
thing of an anti-Muskie nature in Wisconsin. 

In addition to which, part of what Rick Stearns testified to this 
morning, our polling indicated that the strateg>^ Senator McGovern 
had followed from the beginning in New Hampshire was correct, 
which was that he should resolutely refrain — and so should his cam- 
paign people — refrain from attacking any other candidate, that his 
strength lay in the fact that he was perceived as a positive candidate 
rather than a negative one. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. McMinoway — T mean, Mr. Mankiewicz 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I would rather be called Buchanan than 

Mr. Dash. I have been referring to a number of the operatives and 
agents names over a period of months that we have been sitting. 

Mr. Mankiewicz, in these montlis that have floated before us, actu- 
ally in the last couple of weeks, we have had testimony about so-called 
pranks or tricks, political espionage, from various witnesses, that run 
the gamut from having certain persons at a rally or at a meeting, place 
hard questions to the candidate, to using stinkbombs, to infiltrate, to 
doing the kinds of things that I refer to in these exhibits that Mr. 
Segretti testified that he was engaged in. I think it would be very 
helpful to the committee if someone with your experience in a Presi- 
dential campaign could aid us as we begin to look at this range of activ- 
ity, and which unfortunately, we have heard is run-of-the-mill and 
which you have denied is run-of-the-mill activity, if we can get your 
recommendations. If we were to consider looking at campaign activity 
for the purposes of legislation or recommending codes of ethics, even, 
where you Avould draw lines in terms of permissible conduct and im- 
permissible conduct ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think it hinges on the question of deception, Mr. 
Dash. I think almost everything is permissible if it is identified as to 
its source; in other words, if a McGovern supporter wants to go to a 
Muskie rally where there Avill be a question period and ask a hard 
question of Senator Muskie, I see nothing objectionable about that. 
If, on the other hand, he is secretly a Nixon supporter posing as, let us 
say, a McGovern supporter or a Humphrey supporter, in order not 
only to ask a question of the candidate but to embarrass the candidate 
he is allegedly supporting, that is something else again. ; 

I think the whole question goes to one of deception. I think prob- ' 
ably the most damaginji thinof in the political arena is if we come to 
believe that a piece of literature identified as coming from one candi- 
date, in fact does not come from him but comes from someplace else. 
Then nothing will be believable. Then if a candidate makes a state- 
ment on an issue, one will not be able to know whether indeed he made 
that statement, stands behind it. supports it. When a piece of literature 
comes out saying Muskie for President or so-and-so for Senator, one 


has to believe that that is indeed where it is coming from. If we can no 
longer believe that, then I think the process has perhaps been irrep- 
arably damaged. I would hoi)e that there could be legislation pro- 
posed here which would outlaw that kind of deception. 

Mr. Dash. Does it not go to the heart of it, Mr. Mankiewicz, -when 
you point your finger at deception, such things as infiltration, decep- 
tion such as a person representing himself as a person who is working 
for that candidate when he is in fact a spy, paid for volunteering and 
giving back information and these leaflets. If the free-election system 
is to permit candidates to express their positions and present issues 
to the American electorate, is there any room in American politics, 
in the free society we call our American free society, for any political 
party, whether it be the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, 
to promote the kind of deceptive practices that manipulate votes 
through misrepresentation ? 

Mr. IMankiewicz. I not only believe there is no place for it, I believe 
that there has not, until the 1972 campaign, the 1972 Nixon campaign, 
been any place for it, that it existed. Xow we kncm- it can be done. 

I must say I heard_Mr. Buckley testify a few days ago that he did 
not think there was any crime involved in taking documents from 
one candidate under the guise of working for him and being a mes- 
senger, photographing them and turning them over to another 

Mr. Dash. Does this offend your sense of ethics? 

Mr. IVLvNKiEWicz. It does. It not only offends my sense of ethics, I 
find it hard to believe it is not illegal. If it is not, it should be. "When 
a man goes to a man engaged in a Presidential campaign and claims 
to be working for him and in secret is working for somebody else, that 
ought to be illegal. When a statement is put out on Senator X's sta- 
tionery and in fact it is a statement of Senator Y, or more likely 
President Y, that ought to be illegal as well. The question goes to 

Mr. Dash. The criminal sanction may not be during an election a 
very effective one ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. That is right. I •\A-ould hope the committee might 
turn its attention to the question of sanction in the electorial area. 

Mr. Dash. Could you give us a suggestion of the kind of area ? 

Mr. Maxkiew^icz. I have not given it a great deal of thought, but 

it seems to me that if the penalty, for example, for this kind of illegal 

" behavior were, to make an analogy in sports, if a fighter hits below 

the belt, he loses the round and he can win the fight only by winning 

a majority of the rounds. That is a serious penalty. 

Mr. Dash. An analogy in the election would be what? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Maybe the candidate loses that State. Maybe he 

is ineligible to be on the ballot. I do not know. I am just throwing 

tliese out. I do not suggest for 1' minute that they are reasonable 

solutions or even constitutional ones. But it seems to me if the penalty 

went in that direction, rather than saying, j^ou have to pay a fine of 

$100 or the candidate can sue you and 5 years later find that you are 

judgmentproof and not collect anything, or it is a misdemeanor and 

; you may have to pay a fine or be on probation or whatever it is, I do 

not think that is enough. I think we have to look at different kinds of 

I penalties, because we are dealing with a very fundamental kind of 

\ activity. 


Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, we did not, in asking you to come as a 
witness, either give you the time or ask you to prepare specific recom- 
mendations. But I think with your experience, with the research you 
are presently doing, it would be very helpful to the committee if you 
would think a little about these things. 

Mr, Mankiewicz. I Avill be happy to. 

Mr. Dash. And if you have some recommendations you would like 
to submit to the committee, we would appreciate it very much. Tlie 
kinds of recommendations ought to be workable and practical ones, 
and not theoretical ones; and I think coming from a person who was 
active in a campaign and was in the pit, I think j^erhaps we would be 
able to find that a much more useful recommendation. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time. 

Senator MoNTOYA. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ]Mankiewicz, do I understand your opinion is that the Segretti 
activities did not really influence that many votes, but it caused disrup- 
tion in the opposing camps and caused disharmony and discord among 
the various Democratic candidates ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. That is substantially correct, yes. 

INIr. Thompson. "Was there not an inherent effort, say. in a primary 
campaign among the Democratic candidates themselves to create a cer- 
tain amount of disharmony among the various candidates opposing 
that person ? 

INIr. Mankiewicz. Not if I understand your question correctly, my 
answer would be no. 

]\Ir. Thompson. I will be right to the point. I came across something 
that I would like to ask you about, because I am not sure of the import 
of it myself. 

Mr. Richard Dougherty — what position did he hold in the 
campaign ? 

ISIr. ]\Iankiewicz. He was traveling press secretary after the 

^Ir. Thompson. Have you had a chance to read his book "Good-bye 
Mr. Christian"? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I have read in it very briefly. I haven't had a 
chance to read it all. 

Mr. Thompson. I have not had an opiiortunity to read the entire 
book, but I notice here on page GO, the bottom ]:)aragraph. T believe 
this is in Novembei- or December of 1071 when this came about. He 
says : 

In the mail the next morning was a memo from Gary Hart addressed to Man- 
kiewicz, Gralnick, and me. It said we should move the story in wliatever mys- 
terious ways such stories are moved that the Muskie campaign is urjring- com- 
mitted McGovern supporters to switch to Muskie to stoj) Huhert Humphrey. 
Humphrey is being used as the villain to encourage liberals to rally around the 
Muskie candidacy. We .should drive the wedge deeper, but use it against Muskie 
in such a way as to increase Humphrey's displeasure with Muskie. 

Do you recall that memoiandnm. which, according to him was sent 
to you ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. T don't recall the memorandum, but T recall that 
feeling and that discussion, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Could vou enlighten us as to what 

Mr. Mankiewicz. "Well. I see a trreat deal of ditference there. 


Mr. Thompson. I am not trying to draw any comparison. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. But if what you mean is to — I see that, Mr. 
Tliompson, as the driving of an electoral wedge in Gary Hart's phrase, 
rather than a personal one. I think what he was saying was that Sena- 
: tor Muskie's people were at that time — it was really our Valley Forge 
there — the end of December. Our supporters were melting away and 
there hadn't been very many of them to begin with. What Senator 
Muskie was doing, and rather effectively at that time, was suggesting 
to people in the Democratic Party that if they didn't want Senator 
Humphrey to be the nominee, then he was the alternative, that they 
had better rally around him and not be dividing between him and 
Senator McGovern. What Gary Hart was saying is let's try to combat 
that by whatever the device was that he was talking about, by point- 
ing out that 

Mr. Thompson. Leaking the story, I assume. 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. Well, leaking is a pejorative word there. He was 

describing a fact and he was sayin,g we ought to get the press 

j Mr. Thompson. Move in whatever mysterious ways such stories are 
I moved. 

Mr. Mankiewioz. Yes, get the press to write about it. Gary always 
professed ignorance of the craft of a press secretary, which we were 
i very zealous to guard, because the fact is there is no craft at all. But we 
would have to maintain the proposition that there is. What he was 
saying is : Let's get the proposition across somehow to the public that 
we know that Muskie is trying to do this, when in fact, there was 
still a contest going on and we should keep the division between the 
I Humphrey supporters and Muskie supporters. But not over the ques- 
tion of personality. Not over the question of whether one of them is 
. guilty of some terrible sexual deviations, but only as to their positions 
on the issues. 

Mr, Thompson. I am not trying to relate this. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I understand. 

Mr. Thompson. I think we have to draw an overall picture as to 
' whether or not the falling out among the various candidates, if that 
I is what it was, had to do with what Donald Segretti and some of his 
i people did totally or whether it was in part due to the natural opera- 
tions of a political campaign. And stories, whether they are true or 
not, are designed to increase a candidate's displeasure with another 

Mr. Mankiewicz. It is unquestionably a mixed question. There are 
all kinds of reasons that go into it, but I think the anger and the 
rancor and the bitterness was far stronger this year than it has ever 
been and I think it is at least in large part attributable to this kind 
of campaign. 

Mr. Thompson. If you will allow me, I will give a plug to your 
new book, which I believe is coming out very soon, is it not? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Thompson. What is the name of that book i 

Mr. Mankiewicz. It is called "Perfectly Clear ; Nixon From Whit- 
tier to Watergate.'' 

Mr. Thompson. Did you discuss the matters concerning the signif- 
icance of the sabotaging in the primary, the Segretti type activities in 
your book ? 


Mr. Maxkiewicz. I go into it to some extent, yes. 
Mr. Thompson. How did you analyze it there ? Substantially as you 
did here ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Substantially as I am today. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you add any 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, the major emphasis that I placed there was on 
this lar^jer question of. to what extent has this kind of activity taken 
place in other campaigns. 

]SIr. Thompson. And you analyzed the preA'ious campaigns of 1968, 

Mr. ]VL\NKiEwicz. 1960 and I guess 1956. 

Mr. Thompson. All the Avav back, every Presidental campaign back 
to 1956? 

Mr. Mankiew^icz. Yes, and some in 1952, as well. 
Mr. Thompson. What did you find, for example, as a matter of com- 
parison ? Is the unique factor of this situation the fact of the Segretti 
type activities, the attributing of certain literature to a person who, did 
not in fact sponsor that literature ? 

Is that the unique part? We are not saying that unfair advantage 
and improper activities have never occurred in any previous campaign, 
are we ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, in my discussions of people in other cam- j 
paigns, I was talking more about the more hurried things that we have ' 
heard about before this committee — Aviretapping, the placing of spies, j 
that sort of thing. I asked each of those campaign managers. I said, if 
you had the guaranteed opportunity without any fear of detection, of 
having a full electronic surveillance and wiretap on everything the 
opposing candidate and his headquarters were doing every day, plus a i 
few well-trained spies at every headquarters, would you do it ? i 

And without exception, they all said no, they would not. 
Mr. Thompson. I know Mr. Cliff White, for example, one of the gen- 
tlemen you mentioned, and yourself. 
Mr. jNIankiewicz. That is right. 

Mr. Thompson. And, of course. Senator Baker said the other day he 
felt that the professional politician has taken a bum rap throughout 
this whole thing. 

Mr. JNIankiewicz. I agree. 

Mr. Thompson. Would you pretty much agree that what we have 
seen in the testimony has not been thought out or carried out by a 
professional politician as you would describe one ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. That is right. Tlie yiomt I have made is that it is 
not characteristic in any way of Republican or Democratic campaigns. 
Mr. Thompson. We have heard some talk, some testimony, I be- 
lieve, alluding to the 5 o'clock club in a previous campaign, when 
they met at the White House and discussed A^arious aspects of the 

Do you have any familiarity Avith that kind of activity that was 
discussed there? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I discussed that with JNIr. ]\Iyer Feldman, who 
was chairman of that group in the 1964 campaign. That was a 
rather mysterious name for really, a sort of immediate issues group. 
The function of that group was to find out Avhat Senator Gohhvater 
either had just said or was about to say and provide surrogates, 
although in those days, they didn't have that Avord, with informa- 


tion with Avliicli to ans^yel■ him, preferably on the scene, preferably 
before he spoke. 

That involved sending volunteers over to pick up advance copies 
of speeches and press releases and schedules. 

Jim Hagerty, by the way, told me that in 1956, he arranged with 
his counterpart at the Democratic campaign to exchange schedules 
and speech texts so they wouldn't be bothered with sending volunteers 
over to pick them up. 

Cliff White commented on the practice of football coaches in ex- 
changing the films. He said he thought that was a better analogy, 
or at least one that ought to be practiced. 

Mr. Thompsox. Are you familiar with the story, I believe by Mr. 
Lisagor, where he states that former President Johnson told him 
that Senator Goldwater, during the campaign, was going to an- 
nounce that he was going to send Ike to Vietnam if elected and that 
subsequently, ]\Ir. Goldwater did make that announcement, and there 
was some question as to how that information was obtained. 

Do you recall that story or any circumstances about it? 

Mr. JSIankiewicz. No, I do not. 

Mr. Thompsox. You mentioned Mr. Stewart Mott and you said 
you were concerned at one point that he might have been the author 
of the "Citizens for a Liberal Alternative." 

At what point did this matter reach your attention and at what 
point did you 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think it was during the New Hampshire pri- 
mary. I believe it was Berl Bernhard who was the manager of the 
Muskie campaign who called and told me about the leaflet. I got 
a copy of it. He said that he thought this w'as a very bad thing, 
that we shouldn't have done it. 

I said, well, we didn't do it, but T must say, it looks to me as though 
maybe Stewart Mott did it and Ave have absolutely no control over him. 

Mr. Thompsox. What caused you to think that ? 

Mr. Maxkiew^icz. Well, if you will look at the other leaflet that 
Mott did do, it has the same sort of tone. 

Mr. Thompsox. Which came out first ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think the true Mott document, whatever it is 
called, the citizens responsibility project or whatever it was. 

Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Mott, I believe, contributed approximately 
$350,000 to the Senator Muskie campaign, did he not? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. No, Senator McGovern's campaign. 

Mr. Thoinipsox. I am sorry, Senator INIcGovem's. 

Mr. jSIaxkiewicz. He did, but onlv fr-om June of 1972 on, or per- 
haps earlier than that, slightly earlier than that. At the time we are 
speaking of, he had not become a supporter of Senator McGovern's 
and did not do so, I think, until after Wisconsin. He made a rather 
small contribution early in the campaign and told us he was making a 
similar contribution to three other candidates. He made us a loan, at 
one point, for the purpose, I think, of a television broadcast, which 
we repaid. Then he made his major contribution over the late spring 
and summer. 

IMr. Thompsox. Did you have any personal contact with him during 
any of this period of time ? 

Mr. Maxkieavicz. Yes, I did. 

4624 I 

Mr. Thomtsox. Did he furnish various homes for meetings and 

tliin<rs like that? -^ ^ , • 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. Xo. what he did. as Rick Steams testified this 
nu>rnin«r. he assumed that somehow, tlie ^rcCarthy-Lindsay-Chis- 
holm->Ic'(;oveni and jierhaps some otlier candidates coadd somehow; 
pet to<rether, and he provided his home occasionally for a meeting forj 
rei)re,sentatives of those campaigns, which we always dutifully at-j 
tended, l)ecause we had high hopes that eventually he would support,! 
us and make a substantial contribution. But he never provided his 
home, that I know of, for a INIcGovern meeting during that time. 

Mr. TuoMPSox. Would you agree that the piece that he put out of 
liis own material Avas a pretty scurrilous piece of liteiature referring; 
to Senator Muskie as a liar "and that his father was a draft dodger! 
and things of this nature ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. What was your characterization of it, scurrilous? 

IMr. TifOMPSOX". Scurrilous. 

Mr. Max'^kiew^cz. I would not argue with that characterization. 

Mr. TiiOMPSOx. Did you ever talk to him about that? 

Mr. Max'kiewicz. I urged him on a number of occasions not to 

Mr. Thompsox'^. Did it ever come to your attention that there had 
been a discussion or plan at one point in the campaign to plant a spy 
aboard either the. Xixon or the AgncAv campaign plane ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. Late in the campaign, in the fall, I would say 
latei September, maybe October I believe, there was a proposal not to 
l)lant a spy but a proposal by a would-be spy to take on that activity, 
a young journalist, who had some credentials and, I think, proposed 
not to me but I believe to Ted Van Dyk, that he would go on the 
Agnew plane and keep his ears open and see if he could pick up any 
of the kind of gaffs and statements that were made on the Agniew 
plane in 1068, and I think he wanted us to pay his expenses, and Ave 
tui'ued it down. 

Mr. Tiio:mi'S()x. Plow did itcome to your attention? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think Van Dyk, I may be wrong about this, but 
T thiidv Van Dyk and Henry Kimmelman, Avho Avas our finance chair- 
man, met with me and described the possibility and said that this offer , 
had been made, and we decided for a variety of reasons not to do it. 

Mr. TiioMi'sox. Did they jiresent it to you in the nature of a possible 
program that might be carried out, and" the three of you were to de- 
cide together as to whether or not it would be ? 

Ml-. ArAXKiEwicz. AVell, they reported that the offer had been made, 
ves. T think everyone's disposition Avas to turn it doAvn. T think every- 
iKxlv had his own reasons for it, for turning it doAvn. 

Mr. TiioMPsox. Do you knoAv Mr. Rodney Smith? 

^fr. Maxkieavicz. I am not sure hoAv aa'cII I knoAv him. I knoAV he 
worked for us in the cami)aign. 

Mr. TiioMpsox. Did you ever discuss this matter Avith him ? 

Mr. Maxkieavicz. Xo. 

Mr. TnoMPsox. Do you knoAv Avhether or not the situation had 
reached the i)oint where credentials, false credentials, had been ob- 
tained for the young man? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. My understanding Avasthat he had credentials. 
Mr. I iioMPsox. He already had credentials aboard the AgneAv 


Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, I assume they would have been sufficient. 
He was in fact representing a couple of 'publications and that he felt 
at least those would be sufficient, but it never got to that. 

Mr. Thompson. AVhat was the proposal — that he was to find out what 
he could and report it back to you ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes, he was sort of going to do the same kind of 
thing that Murray Chotiner provided on our plane. We did not know 
about Chapman's friends at that time, but that was, in effect, what he 
was proposing. 

Mr. Thompson. What was Walter Sheridan's function during the 
campaign, Mr. Mankiewicz ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Walter was an investigator. He is one of the best 
investigators and for a while investigative reporters that I know of. 
He was employed in the McGovern campaign — I am a little hazy on the 
dates but, the financial records would show it — I would think perhaps 
mid- August, and worked until the middle of October wlien we, tem- 
porarily at least, ran out of money or at least indicated that maybe we 
had made our last payroll. His main job was to report to me on the 
status of the Watergate investigation, the Watergate case. I was travel- 
ing with Senator McGovern at that time. There was very little news 
except in Washington, and Walter's job was not only to keep us up to 
date on the material that appeared in the press, but also to try to stay 
a little bit ahead of it. He knows a lot of reporters and was able from 
time to time, to tell us stories that were going to appear or were about 
to appear, and in that way we were able to keep Senator McGovern 
up to date on Watergate day by day. 

In addition, he also did a rundown on the executive committee or 
whatever it was, it turned out, I guess, to be the whole committee, 
of the Democrats for Nixon, to let us know which ones of them were 
in trouble with the Government, which ones were only in prospective 
trouble with the Government. He did that by consulting public records 
over at the Justice Department and FTC and elsewhere. That was his 
basic job. He may have had a couple of things that he undertook from 
time to time, but he was basically reporting to me. 

Mr. Thompson. Why did you need to know what Democrats for 
Xixon were in trouble with the Government? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Because it seemed to me, frankly, Mr. Thompson, 
that that was why they were Democrats for Nixon. 
' Mr. Thompson. They were in trouble with the Government? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I had a feeling that perhaps that might have 
animated some of them, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you have any basis for that knowledge, or was 
that an assumption on your part ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, it was in part an assumption. U e knew 
that some of them had had some kind of tax trouble and that sort ot 
-hing. . 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know how many Democrats for Nixon were 
n the country, according to their figures, anyway ? 
. Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, I imagine a sizable number of Democrats 
I rated for Nixon. The number that were members of that organiza- 
jdon, Ihavenoidea. „ ^. , _^ fV,of 

; Mr. Thompson. AVliat about John Connally, did you as-ume that 
I possibly he was in trouble with the Government, that was the leason 
le headed Democrats for Nixon ? 

ago- 74 - pt. 11 


Mr. Mankiewicz, No, no. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you obtain any information on him ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No. 

Mr. Thompson. Why ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Why did we not? I guess there was not any ol 
the kind we were looking for. 

Mr. Thompson. You had to look in order to make that determination, 
did you not ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I was not thinking of Secretary Connally. We 
always assumed that he was in the process of moving to the Republican 
Party in any event. He had served as Secretary of the Treasury ; there 
was every reason for him to support Nixon. 

Mr. Thompson. There were certain Democrats for Nixon 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, they used to take ads and list 20 or 30 sort 
of prominent types. I mean, as it turned out, of course, the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President was paying all the bills of that organization. 
It was not really an organization at all. So it is hard to determine how' 
many members it had. 

Mr. Thompson. Did Mr. Sheridan ever check these names with the 
Justice Department or the Price Commission or any other governmen- 
tal agency ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. He either did himself or headed up a small force 
of volunteers who would monitor the lists of contributors that the 
Nixon campaign would publish fi'om time to time, when it began to 
comply with the April 7 Financing Act, and we would run those 
names against decisions of the Price Commission to see if any of them 
had received favorable consideration. We found out some things 
through that device. I think we found out about Clement Stone's in- 
surance company getting unlimited price increases that way. 

Mr. Thompson. "What about the Justice Department ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I am not sure whether he ever developed anv 
information from the public records of the Justice Department or not. 

]Mr. Thompson. But you are sure they were all from public records ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Oh, yes; yes, I am. As you recall, the Justice 
Department was not very hospitable to our campaign at that time, at 
that point in time. 

Mr. Thompson. You know there will be a complete turnover in the 
Justice Department as administrations change, do you not? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. By 1972, it looked pretty complete to me. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you have any information concerning Dick Tuck 
having printed the phone numbers of the top GOP staff attending the 
Republican Convention and publishing the phone numbers ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, I do not, but it is plausible. I do not know 
what he did at the Republican Convention. At both conventions, he 
published a newspaper called "Reliable Source" which had some funny 

Mr. Thompson. But you do not know anything about this particular 
incident, to your personal knowledge? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, I do not. 

Mr. Thompson. Did the IMcGovern campaign have what is referred 
to as a^trutJi squad and what you referred to in the campaign as trutli 
squad ? ^ " 

Mr. MANKIEW^cz. I understand a truth squad to be a collection of 
usually public officials following the other candidate around collect- 


iiig what the candidate believes to be errors and untruths from city 
to city. In that sense, we did not, because the other candidate did not 
go around and campaign. There was no one to follow. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you have any method or procedure whereby 
you developed information on people in the administration during 
the campaign ? 

Mr. ]VL\NKiEwicz. Could you be more explicit? 

Mr. Tjigmpson. Well, pe'ople surrounding the President, for ex- 
ample, any information concerning any of these people which could 
be used in some political way ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Only, I think, only in respect to their participa- 
tion or only to the extent of their participation in the Watergate. 

Mr. ThojVipsox. Only with regard to the Watergate ? 

Mr. Maxkkiew'icz. I believe that is the only thing I recall. 

Mr. Thompsox. I believe you stated previously to us that Mr. Sheri- 
dan furnished you with a notebook of some kind or you kept a note- 
book which he supplemented, and you did not recall if you still had 
that. Do you know today Avhether or not you have it? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I do not. Mr. Thompson, but if I do not have it, 
I know where it is; and if you will still want that, I believe I can 
furnish it. 

Mr. Thompsox. Thank you, I have no further questions. 

Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, all throughout the hearings we 
have heard some of the witnesses say in an exculpatory manner, they 
used the words or the sentence "They all do it," or "It is politics as 
usual with respect to dirty tricks." 

Now, can you capsulize your reaction to this, and tell us whether 
it is general or whether it is prevalent in every election and, if not, why 
do you think so? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think those statements are part of the coverup, 
Senator, and I think they are very damaging. I think if we come out 
of tliese hearings with a substantial number of the American people 
believing that this sort of thing is politics as usual and that they 
all do it that the country Avill have suffered very badly. I don't 
believe it is politics as usual. As I said I don't know anybody else 
that does it. I know we didn't, I don't know of any other campaign 
that did. In the course of my talking to people in other Presidential 
campaigns I am convinced it is only the Nixon campaigns that do this. 

Senator Moxtoya. I haA^e been in many campaigns myself and these 
instances are very isolated. They are not politics as usual, and when 
they do occur we uncover them. I am referring to quite a few instances 
in the last 12 years in State, local, and national campaigns. But would 
you affree with me that this is the first time that this kind of an ap- 
proach, a dirty tricks approach, has been under the auspices of a 
Presidential campaign structure? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. With the possible exception of 1968. I am not 
convinced about 1968 but certainly in general, yes, I would agree with 
that st atement. 

Senator Moxtoya. Would you say that this was broader than 1968^ 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. Yes. Yes, I would. I think this is, at least the 
evidence that's come out certainly is, totally unprecedented as tar as 
many of the activities are concerned. , 

Senator ]\Ioxtoya. Can you tell us about the other dirty tricks that 
were practiced on the McGovern campaign, and who they were prac- 
ticed by ? 


Mr. ]Maxkie\vicz. Well, Senator, I am unable to identify who they 
were done by, and it may be that many of the things that we now 
categorize as dirty tricks that were done to the ^IcGovern campaign • 
were by freelance people, by a certain number of kooks that I guess one 
always runs into in a political campaign, but I think with all of the 
evidence that we have here there is a reasonable presumption that 
some, if not all, of them were done by agents of the Xixon campaign. 

I spoke of the events in New Hampshire. There were, I would say. 
between 20, .30, 40 cases throughout the campaign, not only in the 
spring but also in the fall when the people who were in charge of j 
McGovern campaign events would be called and told, whoever was i 
calling, was from the INIcGovern campaign that the event was not 
going to take place, the Senator was not coming or changing the date 
or the time when, in fact, that was not the case, the result of that would 
be delayed preparations for the meeting a day or so and then it would 
be put back on. 

We have evidence that in Los Angeles, for example, just prior to a 
big rally at the Sports Arena every radio station in town was called 
at about 5 o'clock that evening by someone purporting to be from the 
McGovern press office, announcing the meeting had been canceled and 
that cancellation was then put out on all the radio stations, and it cost 
us a full house by the time we were able to correct the report. 

There are a lot of examples of that. There are a lot of examples of 
traditional Democratic leaders and labor people being phoned at 
embarrassing times with insulting messages and being told to be at 
a certain meeting which never took place. I am thinking particularly 
in New Jersey of a couple of times labor people in Jersey City and. T 
believe, in Newark, were called and peremptorily ordered to be at a 
meeting with Sargent Shriver at 8 o'clock in the morning, and they 
were called about 5 :30 or 6 in the morning and told it was a McGovern 
coordinator calling and told to be at a meeting at 8 o'clock and, of 
course, a meeting was not scheduled, it had never been put on, it all 
contributed to a lot of bitterness in the Democratic Party. 

Senator INIoxtgya. What about the call to President ^leany of the 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. That call came prior to the Democratic Conven- 
tion, about a week before. Somebody called to President Meany's 
secretary, asked to speak to ]\Ir. INIeany, was told that he was not 
there. The caller said, "Well, this is Gary Hart, Senator McGovern's 
campaign manager, and if Mr. Meany knows what is good for him. 
he will be in New York tomorrow to meet with Senator McGovern." 

It did not better relations between Mr. ]Meanv and Senator McGov- 
ern. Indeed, it embittered them and I have a feeling that perhaps to 
this day they still 

Senator Moxtoya. When did you find out about this call ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. I believe it was about 3 or 4 days later because 
at that time we were trying to set up such a meeting. 

Senator Moxtoya. And what did you do about the call? I 

Mr, Maxkiewicz. Well, Gary Hart was told about it from, I believe, , 
a columnist who reports generally on labor matters, and he called and; 
said that Mr! Meany was furious that this call had been made and hadi 
no intention now of meeting with Senator McGoveni and was angry. ' 
And Gary said that he had not made such a call and indeed ho had been 
out of the city on the day the call was supposed to have been made. 


He endeavored to tell Mr. Meany's secretary that he did not make the 
call. We tried to make it clear that we had not, but I think they believed 
that he had, and certainly there was no evidence in the record at the 
tune to indicate that anybody else was doing that sort of activity. 

Senator Montoya. Were there any calls to Walter Cronkite? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. W^alter Cronkite called me one day in late Sep- 
tember, I believe, and asked me if I had called him the night before, 
and I said, "No, I had not," and he then proceeded to tell me of a very 
curious call in which someone had phoned pretending to be me, and had 
discussed with Cronkite an arrangement, said this person pretending 
to be me said : "You know, Walter, we have this arrangement where 
McGovern gets 80 percent of the news coverage and Nixon gets 20 
percent and I just want to tell you it's going fine but the press is start- 
ing to notice it and you had better shift the balance a little bit." I 
think at that point Mr. Cronkite got a little suspicious. He got angry 
at the caller, and he said it didn't sound very much like me but he 
thought perhaps it was a bad connection or maybe I had a cold or 
something, but the caller seemed to know my schedule, because he 
mentioned to Mr. Cronkite I was going to be in New York, whatever 
the day was, when indeed we were going to be in New York. So it had 
at least that air of plausibility. 

I have never been able to miderstand the reason for that, except 
possibly in the hopes that maybe Mr. Cronkite would tliink there was 
humor involved and might say something to suggest that there was 
such an arrangement and if the call was taped he might later see it in 
print somewhere, that is his belief that he was being set up. 

Senator Montoya. Wliat about the Arab endorsement by the com- 
mittee and by the Action Committee on Arab Relations in California. 
Do you know about that ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I remember it, and I have always suspected it. 
That is a paper committee that Mr. Mehdi runs, and it is a committee 
that exulted publicly over the assassination of Robert Kennedy. I re- 
member that very well, and I found it difficult to believe that that com- 
mittee would endorse Senator McG-ovem without some inducement 
but I was never able to prove that one had been provided. 

Senator Montoya. Did you ascertain whether or not it was a legiti- 
mate committee? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I had made up my mind sometime before that 
it was not. 

Senator Montoya. Did you ask for the endorsements of this com- 
mittee on behalf of Senator McGovem ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, no ; at no time, and indeed we specifically re- 
pudiated it at that time. 

Senator Montoya. But it was advertised, wasn't it? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes ; it was and it continued to be advertised long 
after we had repudiated it. 

Senator Montoya. Now, what about the demonstration in the Doral 
Hotel lobby in Miami. Do you think that was staged? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I thought at the time there was something wrong 
with it. The lobby filled up with a number of people dressed in what 
used to be a bizarre manner either from Miami Beach, they had a num- 
ber of, it seemed to me, incoherent complaints against Senator Mc- 
Govern. Some of them wanted to know why Stewart Mott, who had a 
lot of General Motors stock, was supporting Senator McGovern when 


General Motors was committing some terrible act somewhere in the 
world, I forget what it was. It was not the kind of complaint one ordi- 
narily heard. 

They filled the lobby and seemed to me to be provoking a conflict 
with the police. I spoke during that day to Chief Pomerantz of the 
Miami Beach Police Department and told him that under any cir- 
cumstances we did not want a confrontation with the police, and he 
agreed with me. The hotel, of course, wanted only to get those people 
out of there and were willing to call the police to do so. I finally went 
down and talked to them and made a deal. If Senator McGovern would 
talk to them they would leave and they did finally leave, but it struck 
me at the time they were people dressed as hippies, and then when I 
heard Mr. Hunt's testimony that he had got Bernard Barker to hire 
some hippies to walk around the Miami Beach hotels and embarrass 
Senator McGoveni I felt my judgment had been confirmed. 

Senator Montoya. Were there similar situations across the country 
during the course of the campaign ? 

Mr. Maxkiewicz. There were. Senator, but I am not prepared to 
say that any or all of them were stimulated by the opposition. They 
may have been. Certainly we now know it would have been in character 
for them to be stimulated. There were a number that seemed to be 
an extraordinary number of people showing up at McGovem meetings 
with signs saying "Gays for McGovern," and in general, I think there 
probably was an attempt to make it seem that the McGovern campaign 
had an unusual number of bizarre people attached to it. We had Mr. 
Porter's testimony here that, I think it was Mr. Colson, hired a picket 
to wear bizarre clothing and parade up and down in front of the 
White House with a McGovern button. I would imagine that that was 
duplicated at various times around the country. 

Senator Moxtoya. Did you have any breakins at the different Mc- 
Govern headquarters throughout the country? 

^Ir. ]Mankiewicz. There were some. There was a breakin in the 
Ohio headquarters and a tile in the ceiling had been tampered with, 
leading the people there to believe that an attempt had been made toj 
place a bug. : 

There were some other breakins at various headquarters around tha 
country and some under suspicious circumstances, but, you see, at the] 
time we didn't have the information that we have now, that this wasii 
part of the method of operation of the Nixon campaign. | 

Senator Moxtoya. What about the computerized list in California,! 
what can you tell us about that? | 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, in California our campaign was run in large] 
part by a man named Myles Rubin who had been in New Hampshire 
and had observed firsthand the success we had had in effect cataloging 
everv^ voter. Democratic voter, in the State, and going after them to 
find out their pivforences, rating them on a scale of 1 to 5 of how they 
felt about Senator McGovern and then going out and polling them on 
election day. I think we got every vote in New Hampshire by that 
technique. But that was a small State and vei*y few Democratic voters. 

California was a big State and ]Mr. Rubin thought he would go out 
and hire a computer and do the same thinjy. He hired a computer firmi 
called "Computer Ideas" which had worked for Democratic candi- 
dates in the past, and we had, as you recall, a million of them. Demo- 


crats, in California. We were able to put on a computer list the name, 
address, phone number, age, race, sex, occupation of about 95 percent 
of the Democrats in the State, and we then had on that printout 
whether they favored Senator McGovern, were leaning toward him, 
were undecided, were leaning against him or were opposed to him, 
one, two, three, four and five, and we used that list on primary day to 
pull out the people we thought would be our voters. 

Xow, that firm was either incompetent or worse during the primary. 
We had a lot of fights with them. They weren't around when we needed 
them. They left a lot of mail on sidings indeed, at the end of the cam- 
paign there was so much undelivered mail they made us a substantial 
refund, but we won the campaign so we didn't worry so much about 
our grievances against them. 

But then I discovered just a few months ago, that firm had been 
bought before we hired them, by Mr. Kalmbach and his associates. 
Whether they deliberately sabotaged us during the primary or not, I 
don't know, but I do knoAv after the primary ]\Ir. Kalmbach was then 
in control of a computerized list of every Democrat in the State of 
California, with his preferences as to Senator McGovern, and in Cali- 
fornia if you don't get the votes of a substantial portion of the Demo- 
crats if you are a Republican CRndidat<^. you don't carry the State. 
And I believe quite firmly that the possession of that list and the 
ability to mail directly to the fours and fives on that list, may very well 
have made the difference in California in November. 

Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, my time is up. 

I now defer to Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one 

I have been trying to refresh mv recollection of matters raised at the 
ver}' outset of these hearings, and specifically, as I recall, both in testi- 
mony given before the committee and in an inquiry which I made of 
the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, I think the 
committee and I were led to believe that the information given by the 
Internal Security Division of the Justice Department to Mr. IMcCord 
and the Committee To Re-Elect the President, was also made available 
to the Democratic candidates. 

Could you comment upon that? Was there any relationship between 
Mr. McGovern's campaign and the Internal Security Division of the 
Justice Department? 

• Mr. Mankiewicz. I remember that testimony. Senator, and at the 
time, I tried to get a statement out that it was false, that at no time 
did we receive any information from the Internal Security Division 
or anywhere else in the Justice Department, or for that matter, any- 
svhere else in the Government except the Secret Service. 

Senator Weicker. There was no contact between Mr. Mitchell's 
office or any other department of the Justice Department and the 
McGovern campaign ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. Only covertly, as it turns out. 

Senator Weicker. Would you say that the record is quite adequate 
is the place to draw the line as to what you investigate as far as your 
opponent is concerned? You have had a great deal of experience 
aere, and the concept of spying has been thrown out on the table. 
[, of course, flatly reject it. I don't feel it has any part in American 


campaigns, and to go through all these convolutions and academic 
exercises to justify it, I think is a lot of nonsense. 

But clearly, people are looking for where to draw the line insofar 
as investigation is concerned. To me, in any event, and I would like 
to have your comment on it, the line is a very simple one. That which 
is a matter of public record is fair game for a political campaign. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I would go beyond that. Senator, and say not 
only a question of examining public records, but also acting in a 
campaign in an open manner. That is, making no attempt to conceal 
who you are and for whom you are working. I think a more serious 
question even than poring through trash, for example, or checking 
on a candidate's personal habits, which I agree is a dangerous prece- 
dent, but I think even more dangerous than that is this practice of 
putting out statements in the name of one candidate, when in fact, 
they are paid for and put out by another. I think that goes right to 
the heart of the process. 

Senator Weicker. I would agree. I meant to restrict myself strictly 
to the investigatory process, and I agree on these other matters also. 

I might add that even if more sophisticated Washington doesn't 
get the message, I was interested in noting the other day a poll taken 
by a very well-known polling firm across the United States, asking 
the question as to whether or not White House spying on the personal 
lives of politicians was a justified act or a proper act, and the answer 
from the American people came back, 83 percent to 8 percent, no. So 
maybe some people might be trying to justify this kind of business 
before the committee, but as usual, the American voter has pretty 
good sense on these matters. He is not buying it, is what I am saying. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I noticed that finding. Senator, with consider- 
able gratification as well. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, I just have one more question. 

Do you have any reason to believe that the phones at any of the 
McGovern headquarters were tapped during the course of the 
campaign ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I have no proof of it, Senator, but I believe that 
they were from time to time. It seemed to me that a number of private 
conversations between me and, for the most part. Senator McGovern 
himself in his Senate office, became known very quickly under circum- , 
stances which indicated to me that somebody else must have been listen- 
ing, because they were not matters that either Senator McGovern or I 
would be talking about. 

Now, it is possible that they might have been overheard in some 
other way. But again, considering what we know, I would, until I can 
establish to the contrary, I would be inclined to think that perhaps 
they were. 

Senator Montoya. Well, as a matter of fact, Whenever a telephone 
is bugged, it is very hard to detect it, is it not ? | 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I believe that to be correct, yes. 

Senator Montoya. I believe that has been the expert testimony ad- 
duced here. 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I see testimony from time to time, by telephone 
company executives, that you do not hear clinkings on the line or any- 
thing like that, that it is impossible to detect, and I believe that is 


Senator Montoya. Do you have any suggestions as to what this com- 
mittee should do to try to clean up politics in the United States and to 
try to prevent the very things that happened by way of dirty tricks? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I share some of the belief that was expressed by 
Mr. Stearns this morning, that you are not going to be able to legislate 
decency, and that an enormous amount of decency in American poli- 
tics depends upon the character of the people who are practicing it. 
We have made it almost for 200 years now with only one campaign 
that exhibits these characteristics, and I think that is not a bad record, 
if you look at it that way. 

I think there are legal or legislative loopholes. I think espionage, 
purporting to work for another candidate when you are being paid 
by someone else, should be illegal if it is not already. I think stealing 
political material from a campaign for the purpose of using it in an- 
other campaign can be reached. I think the kind of thing we have 
talked about here, of publishing a press release or a leaflet in the name 
of one candidate when, in fact, he is not responsible for the material, 
should be dealt with very severely. I think people ought to be able to 
count on the fact that when they see something from a candidate, it 
is indeed from him. 

Beyond that, I think the question of financing is, of course, a very 
serious one, but I think that seems to be being dealt with. I think we 
ought to be heading in the direction of public financing. 

But in general. I think the question of disclosure, so that at all times 
people would be able to know for whom, for which candidate somebody 
is working, is crucial. But I think we can also be stampeded into a lot 
of legislation that may not be needed, because what is really needed is 
that we nominate and ultimately elect public officials and support in 
campaigns people who have a respect for the system. And in general, 
we have had that. 

Senator Montoya. What do you think of situations where vilification 
and libelous statementse are made in advertisements, say, on the eve of 
an election when you cannot deny them or repeal them in any way ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. I think that is a difficult area. Libel, free speech, 
are all mixed in there. I know there are some States that will not per- 
mit any paid political material to go out in the 3 days before an elec- 
tion or in the 4 days before. I think that is probably useful. 

But still, you cannot prevent a candidate from saying anything he 

wants even on election eve. But I think people are getting a little 

sophisticated about that sort of thing and probably tend to reject it 

anyway. I think ultimately, you have to rely on the good sense of the 

I voter. 

I Senator Montoya. And most of this deceptive material is usually 
I under the name of some fake committee. 

! Mr. Mankiewicz. There, I think you can rsach it. I think the whole 
s question of committees and who is responsible for them should be 
tightened up and I think there should be much stiffer penalties. I think 
if somebody went off to jail for that sort of thing, or as I say, if some 
political penalty were imposed somewhere along the line, then I 
think it would stop quickly. 

Senator Montoya. Do you have any other suggestions ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. No, Senator; I must say I haven't really given 
an awful lot of thought to legislative solutions, because I have felt 


right alono; that what wo were witnessing here was not a breakdown of 
the system, but a deliberate assault on it by a group of men who had no 
respect for it. That will happen even if you have the toughest laws in 
the world, as long as thev are prepared to break them. 

Senator Montoya. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman,' I have just one question to follow up on 
what Mr. Mankiewicz has been saying. } 

You have been speaking about drawing the line of deception and i 
relying on the good sense of the voter. I would like to just ask about ' 
one other activity which has come before this committee. That is where i 
there are large ads that take up a full page of the newspaper, in which ; 
indeed the text of the ad is drafted, say, by the Committee for the Re- 
Election of the President but payment of the ads is paid out of the 
campaign funds of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, but 
there is no indication to the citizen who reads that ad in the newspaper 
that it comes from the Committee To Re-Elect the President or a par- 
ticular party, but there are some citizens whose names are signed to it 
in some sort of committee, a citizens committee that in fact has just 
been put together by the Committee To Re-Elect the President, say. 
Is that the kind of thing that would fit into your category of deception ? 

Mr. Mankiewicz. It gets close to the line, but I think it would. I 
think there has to be some wav devised to indicate not only who the 
people are who signed the ad, but who is paying for it, and not only 
who is paying for it, but who is really paying for it. Democrats for 
Nixon, for example, put a lot of ads in the newspapers and ran a lot 
of television commercials. It turned out they were all paid for by the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President. If that fact had been indicated 
at the time, it might have weakened their impact somewhat. This is 
the reason why the deception was practiced in the first place. 

Mr. Dash. It really gets down to the question of, if you are going to I 
ultimately rely on the good sense of the American voter, whether or not 
he is going to have a chance to use that good sense. If he is being mis- 
represented so that he believes that honest citizens like him, who be- 
lieve in a certain way, put their own money into paying for such an 
act, it might influence his views. But if he knew the source of the funds 
and the source of the rhetoric, he might be able to just recognize 
from whence it came. 

Mr. Mankiewt:cz. I agree. If those ads supporting President Nixon 
after the mining of the harbor at Haiphong, for instance, had had a 
line at the bottom saving, "Cooy for this ad furnished by the special 
counsel to the President and paid for by the President's personal coun- 
sel,'' they might have had less impact. 

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairaiaii. I want to 
thank this witness. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. No questions. 

Senator Montoya. Senator Weicker. 

Senator "VVeicker. No < uestions. 

Senator Montoya. I want to thank you. Mr. Mankiewicz. 

The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair, 

[Whereupon at 4 :15 p.m., the committee recessed subject to the call 
of the Chair.] 


J! U.S. Senate, 

Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

(Washington^ D.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Montoya, Baker, and Weicker. 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred 
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief 
counsel; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, 
assistant chief counsels; Marc Lackritz, W. Dennis Summers, and 
Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels ; Eugene Boyce, hearings 
record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel; 
Michael J. Madigan and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority coun- 
sels; Jed Johnson, investigator; Pauline O. Dement, research assist- 
ant ; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye ; Ron McMahan, assist- 
ant to Senator Baker ; Ray St. Armand, assistant publications clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will call 
the first witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, the first witness will be a staff member of 

the committee, Mr. Marc Lackritz, for the purpose of giving evidence 

linto the record concerning the chart which is to the committee's left. 

Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel will direct the questioning 

of Mr. Lackritz. 

]VIr. Lenzer. Before we start, Mr. Chairman, may we have the chart 
entered as our next exhibit ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes ; the reporter will mark it with the appropriate 
exhibit number. 

[The chart was marked exhibit No. 248 and appears on page 4637.] 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Lackritz, can you describe what this chart pur- 
ports to reflect ? 


Mr. Lackritz. Yes. The chart purports to summarize in chrono- 
logical fashion the polls comparing different Democratic candidates 
going back to February of 1971, and at the same time the same chrono- 
logical base shows the activities of a variety of individuals engaged 
in either surveillance activities, information gathering, or some kinds 
of sabotage in the 1972 Presidential campaign. 

The chart is made out chronologically, as you can see, and there is 
a color code to relate the standing of the polls of the individual candi- 



date with the individuals who are focusing on the specific primaries. 
So, for exam])le, while Senator Mnskie's popularity is demonstrated 
in the thick black line, the individuals who were focusing on Senator 
Muskie's campaign are shown here in black bars. Similarly with Sena- 
tor Humphrey, the dashed green line shows his standing in the 
popularity polls compared with President Nixon and Governor 
IVallace, and down here the bars with the broken green line shows the 
individuals who were focusing on the Hum])hrey campaign, and so 
on with Senator McGovern with the broken line. 

Mr. Lexzner. Do the color codes also show what geographical areas 
the individuals were operating in ? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. On the individual bar there is a 
notation to show at a particular point in time, where each individual 
was located in relationship to his activities in the primaries. I think it 
is interesting to note, first of all, are the polls that back in February, 
March, April, May, and June of 1971, the figures from polls which 
comes from the Louis Harris poll reflect Senator Muskie was in front 
of both President Nixon and Governor Wallace in the three-way race 
and those points are denoted by asterisks on the top of the chart. This 
is the same period of time, I believe, when the earlier political strategy, 
which was introduced with Mr. Buchanan was written. 

]Mr. Lenzner. Now, the operations that are color coded on the bottom 
relate chronologically to the popularity chart on top? 

Mr., Lackritz. That is correct, and the reason they are in different 
colors is to show when specific individuals would shift their focus of 
their activity to other candidates so one could relate it not only to the 
polls, but also to the primary elections which are shown above that. 

Mr. Lenzner. And what is the lower part of the chart based on. 
what information that the committee has received ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Well, the lower part of the chart is based primarily 
on the staff interviews that have been conducted by Mr. Armstrong. 
Mr. Jim Moore, Ms. DeOreo, Mr. Lee Sheehy and other members of 
the staff. 

Mr. Lenzner. You are a staff attorney with the committee, is that 
correct ? I forgot to ask you. 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Starting under the heading Gemstone, can you briefly 
describe the activities that Mr. Gregory was involved in based on in- 
terviews and other information the committee has received ? 

ISIr. Lackritz. ]Mr. Gregory, as it shows on the chart, was initiallvi 
hired in February of 1972 by Howard Hunt to infiltrate the ]\Iuskie 

The chart shows that Mr. Gregory w^as initially hired in February 
of 1972 to infiltrate the Muskie campaign by E. Howard Hunt. He was 
paid $175 a week for his activities and received a total of $3,400 over 
the period of his employment. AA^iile working in the Muskie head- 
quarters he was asked to provide information about a variety of dif- 
ferent individuals and contributors and he passed this information 
back to Mr. Hunt in the form of typed memorandums delivered to him 
on a weekly basis. 




Mr. Lenzner. The chart seems to show that he changed from focus- 
ing on Senator Muskie's campaign to another campaign. When was 
that and what precipitated that change? 

Mr. Lackritz. Well, as you can see on the chart, in the middle of; 
April he was directed to shift the focus of his activities from Senator 
Muskie to Senator McGovern by Mr. Hunt. This period of time, as you 
can see on the popularity poll chart also corresponds to Senator 
Muskie's decline in the popularity polls at that time. 

Mr. Lexzner. Now, I think we have had testimony from Mrs. Har- 
mony and other people that there were memos prepared indicating 
sources of information to the Committee To Re-Elect and other in- 
dividuals. We are using codes as the sources of Ruby 1, Ruby 2, and 
Crystal. Did Thomas Gregory have a code name? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Thomas Gregory was known as Ruby 2 since 
following the activities of John Buckley testified before the com- 
mittee, Mr. Buckley's activities were referred to as Ruby 1 and Mr. 
Gregory as Ruby 2. 

Mr. Lenzner. Again, how much did Mr. Buckley receive from his 
activities ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Buckley received approximately $8,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. The name below Buckley is Crystal. "V^^iat does that 
reflect ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Well, Crystal, as you can see, this box over here re- 
flects the placing of electronic surveillance in the Democratic com- 
mittee, which has become known as the Watergate case. 

Mr- Lenzner. Xow turning to Chapman's friends can you briefly 
describe their activities in what they engaged in ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Chapman's friends were two newspaper re- 
porters hired by Mr. Murray Chotiner and paid at the rate of $1,000 
dollars a week to travel with the press entourage of different Demo- 
crat candidates. Their operation began back in March of 1971 and 
continued in the middle and all the way through the November 

Mr. Lenzner. And what do you base, what have you based, the 
length of period of time for both of those individuals on, what kind 
of information ? 

Mr. Lackritz. That information is based on staff interviews that 
have been held with Mr. Chotiner and others as well as copies of all, 
of the Chapman's friends reports which have been turned over to the' 

Mr. Lenzner. How much totally was paid to both of those 
individuals ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Roughly about $44,000 was paid in toto to those 

Mr. Lenzer. Now turning to Sedan Chair, can you describe what 
activities Greaves was engaged in and who hired him? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was contacted in the fall of 1971 by Mr. 
Porter, Mr. Magruder. and \>as asked to engage in a few different 
activities on the west coast. Specifically he was asked to provide pickets 
at the appearance of Senator Muskie at Whittier College in Novem- 
ber of 1971 whicli lie did, and he was also asked to greet the arrival of 
Senator Muskie's plane at Los Angeles on one occasion with pickets 
which he also attempted to do. Later he was sent 25 copies of the pam- 


phlet introduced earlier by Mr. Buchanan with the Citizens for a Lib- 
eral Alternative. These pamphlets were sent for the purpose of dis- 
tributing them at a fund-raising dinner with Muskie contributors in 
which he was to place the pamphlets in the programs of the individ- 
uals who were there — when they opened them up they would find the 
pamphlets. Subsequently, he was hired full-time by Mr. Porter and 
Mr, Magruder to travel with the Muskie campaign. He went to New 
Hampshire where he spent about 3 days waiting for opportunities for 
political activities in New Hampshire. Following these 3 days he went 
down to Florida where he spent one day in Tampa before resigning 
from his position. That is demonstrated here. 

Mr- Lenzner. Do you recall who recommended Mr. Greaves for 
those activities ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was recommended for that activity by 
Mr. Allen Walker. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Allen 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Ron Walker, excuse me. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who was he at the time ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Ron Walker was chief of the White House ad- 
vance operations at that time. 

Mr. Lenzner. What is he now, do you know ? 

Mr. Lackritz. He is now in charge of the National Park Service, 
Department of Interior. 

Mr. Lenzner. Is that based on interviews with Ron Walker — Ma- 
gruder and Walker? 

]\Ir. Lackritz. Yes, sir, and also with Mr. Greaves. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Greaves. How much was Mr. Greaves paid ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was totally paid about $3,000 for his 

Mr. Lenzner. And McMinoway has already testified he is Sedan 
Chair II ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was actually known as Sedan Chair and 
when he resigned, another individual took his place and he was known 
as Sedan Chair II. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who hired him ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. McMinoway was hired by Mr. Roger Stone who 
was instructed to do so by Mr. Porter who had been instructed to do so 
by Mr. Magruder. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much did Mr. McMinoway receive totally ? 

Mr. Lackritz. He received totally $6,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now turning — we have had testimony from him — 
■turning to the Segretti operatives. I would like you to just briefly 
summarize those, the names of those individuals from whom we have 
not had testimony before the committee, starting with Mr. Burdick; 
has Mr. Burdick been interviewed ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, Mr. Burdick has been interviewed by the staff in 

Mr. Lenzner. What activities did he undertake under that with Mr. 
Segretti ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Segretti hired Mr. Burdick for the purposes of tailing 
Senator Muskie when he went to Chicago in November of 197L He 
followed Senator Muskie for 2 days getting places, cars and travel for 
Senator Muskie and keeping track of individuals traveling with Sen- 
ator Muskie. He was paid $335 for his efforts for the 2 days. 


Mr. Lenzner. What was his occupation at the time? ' 

Mr. Lackritz. At the time he was a retired individual from the CID ' 
who had g;one into a private detective service at that time. 

Mr. Lenzner. The next name is Norton. What did lie do? { 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Norton was a friend of Mr. Segretti's in college. | 
Mr. Segretti contacted him in January 1972. The primary activity of ,' 
Mr. Norton was helping recruit individuals for Mr. Segretti in San 1 
Francisco and Los Angeles. Mr. Norton also secured the services of J 
individuals for Mr. Segretti in East St. Louis, 111., and set up a post ' 
office box where they could contact Mr. Segretti at a postal center in i 
Los Angeles. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he on occasion travel to San Francisco to obtain 
recruits for Segretti ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, he did. On one occasion he traveled to San Fran- 
cisco and attempted to recruit four or five difi'erent individuals and 
successfully recruited Mr. Silva who is on the chart. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, we have heard from Benz and Kelly. What about 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. O'Brien was hired by a gentleman by the name 
of Ward Turnquist, who was a friend of Mr. Chapin's from high 
school. Mr. Turnquist contacted Mr. O'Brien for the purpose of in- 
filtrating the Muskie campaign in Los Angeles, which Mr. O'Brien 
agreed to do. Mr. O'Brien sent that information back to Mr. Turn- 
quist — back to Mr. Segretti, excuse me, and Mr. Segretti would for- 
ward much of it on to Mr. Chapin. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Turnquist's name came to Mr. Segretti from Mr. 
Chapin, is that correct ? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct, he was a high school friend. 

Mr. Lenzner. ISIr. O'Brien has not been interviewed because he is 
residing outside the country, is that correct ? 

Mr. Lackritz. He is outside the United States, that is right. 

Mr. Lenzner. What about Johnson ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Johnson was contacted by Mr. Segretti in San 
Diego, Calif. This is back in the spring of 1972 Avhen the Republican 
Convention was still being planned for San Diego. Mr. Segretti asked 
Mr. Johnson to keep tabs on various radical groups who were planning 
demonstrations for the convention. He contacted Mr. Johnson over 
this period of time, about 2 months, frequently by telephone, to keep 
in touch with what was happening with the radicals planning demon- 
strations at the convention. 

Mr. Lenzner. This information was based on interviews with John- 
son and Segretti ? 

Mr. Lackritz. This information is based on interviews conducted 
with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Segretti, yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. What about Michael Martin ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Martin was contacted by Mr. Segretti in Wash 
ington in 1972 for purposes of infiltrating the Humphrey campaign 
Mr. Martin did in fact infiltrate the Humphrey campaign for a period 
slightly over 3 months and was paid $200 by Mr. Segretti for his 

Mr. Lenzner. And going down to Mr. Visny, can you describe his 

Mr. Lackritz. Information on Mr. Visny's activities is based pri- 
marily on interviews with Mr. Segretti. Mr. Visny passed away in 



an automobile accident last summer. He was Mr. Secrretti's contact for 
the Illinois primary and placed newspaper ads supporting Senator 
McCarthy in the Illinois primary and also participated in passing 
out some literature in the Illinois primary. 

Mr. Lenzner. And then going down to Mr. Zimmer, can you de- 
scribe where he operated and what he did ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Mr. Zimmer worked in the Pennsylvania pri- 
mary, primarily. He was contacted by Mr. Segretti at the beginning 
of A])ril 1972 and was told to work with pickets for appearance by 
both Senator Muskie and Senator Humphrey. His notes were intro- 
duced as exhibits in Mr. Segretti's testimony. They primarily consisted 
of organizing pickets and occasional hecklers at appearances by 
Senator Muskie. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he receive funds from Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was he also interviewed ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Lenzner. The bottom of the chart shows two other names, 
Friedman and Brill, not connected to Segretti's operation. Can you 
describe their activities? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, Mr. Friedman worked for the Republican Na- 
tional Committee and was instructed bv Carl Rove to attend a youth 
leadership conference held by the Muskie campaign back in Januaiy 
1972. He attended the leadership conference under an assumed name 
and provided infonnation back to Mr. Rove and otliers concerning 
speeches given to individuals who attended the leadership conference. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he receive funds? 

Mr. Lackritz. He was on the payroll at the time of the Republican 
National Committee. He did not receive extra funds for that. 

Mr. Lenzner. What about Mr. Brill ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Brill was hired by Mr. George Gorton, who was 
a college friend and with the Young Voters for the President. 
He was told to sit with the Quaker group in front of the "\Miite 
House to get information concerning their political attitudes and find 
out any plans they may have had for disruption or attendance at 
the Republican Convention. He worked approximately 8 weeks and 
was terminated following the Watergate break-in. He was paid a 
total of $675 for his efforts. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who asked Mr. Gorton to infiltrate the Quaker 
group ? 

Mr. Lackritz. He was told tliat l)y Mr. Ken Rietz. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was Mr. Rietz following anybody's direction or 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, Mr. Rietz was following the request of Mr. 
Magruder, who in turn had been requested by Mr. Colson's office to 
place somebody in front of the White House with a McGovern 

Mr. Lenzner. This was based on, affirmed by interviews with Mr. 
Mao-nider, Mr. Rietz, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Brill; is that correct? 

Mr. liACKRiTZ. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also participate in, or did the staff partici- 
pate in. some advice involving a group called the United Democrats for 
Kennedy ? 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 


Mr. Lackritz. Yes, they did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Describe that. 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, that is a letter sent out on the letterhead of 
the United Democrats for Kennedy over the signature of Mr. Robin 
Ficker, Democrat of Maryland. Mr. Ficker had been contacted by 
an individual named Mike Abramson, who asked Mr. Ficker if he 
were interested in supporting a write-in campaign for Mr. Kennedy. 
Mr. Ficker said he was and was later brought a copy of a letter to 
sign by an individual he identified as Bill Robinson, who identified 
himself as a supporter of Mr. Kennedy from 16th Street. Mr. Ficker 
signed the letter and it was subsequently mailed out to residents of 
New Hampshire. The mailing was paid for by funds coming from 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the mailing was ac- 
complished by using the Committee To Re-Elect the President's 
mailing list in New Hampshire. The mailing was sent out and there 
were subsequent press conferences held by Mr. Ficker urging them to 
support a write-in ^or Kennedy. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was the letter urging people to write in, in New 
Hampshire, primarily votes for Senator Kennedy? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And is there information that reflects that the letter 
was drafted and paid for by the Committee To Re-Elect, and on 
the mailing list that was submitted by them or used by them, is 
that based on interviews conducted by this committee? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Mr. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson. 

Ml'. Thompson. Mr. Lackritz, as I understand it, you are stating the 
facts based upon the polling that was done and not drawing any con- 
clusions from those facts, is that basically correct ? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct, Mr. Thompson. It is just to lay out 
the facts of the poll. 

Mr. Thompson. And, of course, you have the rise and decline of 
various candidates there. You have some things that are possibly for 
consideration before that with regard to the activities of the various 
Segretti operatives and so forth. That chart does not include other 
factors which might enter into the rise and decline of a particular 
candidate such as the public response to the candidate's position on 
certain issues, does it ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Certainly not. 

Mr. Thompson. And it does not consider the fact or the possibility 
of the ability of the candidates to raise funds ? 

Mr. Lackritz. No, it does not. There was a very limited purpose in 
constructing the chart. 

Mr. Thompson. Or the extent and quality of their advertising ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Certainly not. 

Mr. Thompson. Nor the effect of decisions to enter certain pri- 
maries or not to enter certain primaries that might prove wise or un- 
wise in retrospect. 

I notice here in the chart that Mr. Buckley's testimony — I believe 
it was — was that he was purloining certain documents from the 
Muskie campaign at one particular time, copying those documents and 
sending them back. 


Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Is that substantially correct ? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. I notice here that Mr. Muskie's most dramatic rise 
seems to be from the middle of September to the middle of January and 
Mr. Buckley's activities started the first part of September and con- 
tinued on past January, but it seems that the beginning of his activi- 
ties of purloining Senator Muskie's documents and Senator Muskie's 
rise correspond. Would that be correct ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Obviously, they correspond on the chart. As you 
pointed out before, I am not sure we should draw any conclusions 
from the chart. 

Mr. Thompson. Any corralation? 

Mr. Lackritz. I think another interpretation one might offer on the 
chart, Mr. Thompson, is that obviously, the activities of the individ- 
uals would be directed against front runners and one might interpret 
the chart in that way, too, that an individual's rise and fall seems to be 
more actively related to these activities. 

Mr. Thompson. What about Mr. Greaves, Sedan Chair — whose ac- 
tivities ? 

JNIr. Lackritz. Senator Muskie's. 

Mr. Thompson. His activities were being carried out during this 
period of time, too, were they not ? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. I have no questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. I have no questions, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. No questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Taliniadge. No questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. I have no questions. 

Senator Ervin. And I have no questions. 

Mr. Lenzner. Just one item, I forgot to go into with Mr. Lackritz. 

Did you also conduct an investigation with the staff involving the 
allegations concerning the American Independent Party, and the re- 
moval of registered voters names from the list in California ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you just briefly describe the results of that 
investigation ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes; an individual by the name of Robert Walters 
in California was formerly with the American Independent Party. He 
sought to reregister voters in the American Independent Party to take 
them off the ballots so Governor Wallace could not run as a third party 
candidate in California in 1972. He contacted third party individuals 
and met with Mr. Magruder in the fall of 197L Mr. Magruder agreed 
subsequently, after conferring with Mr. Mitchell, to send $10,000 out 
to the effort to reregister American Independent Party voters. This 
was done by sending fimds through Mr. Lyn Nofziger, who at that 
time was at the Republican National Commil:tee, who subsequently had 


them sent to Mr. Jack Lindsey, a businessman out in Los Angeles, who 
subsequently paid the money in four or five different installments to 
Mr. Robert Walters. Mr. Waltere enlisted the help of Mr. Glenn 
Parker, who formerly had been an organizer with the American In- 
dependent Party and also subsequently attempted to have a canvass of 
individual voters of the American Independent Party to have 
them change their registration to Republican. This effort required a 
number of individuals to be canvassers. Among the individuals that 
were recruited for this effort were members of the American Nazi 
Party in southern California. We have copies submitted to us of checks 
that were given to individuals of the American Nazi Party through 
Mr. Walters' bank account. 

Mr. Lenzner. And this information was based on interviews with 
the individuals you have just named ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Mr. Glenn Parker, Mr. Walters, Mr. Joseph 
Tomassi, who was the individual in the American Nazi Party, Mr. 
Magruder, Mr. Nof ziger, and Mr. Lindsey. 

Mr. Lenzner. OneT>ther question. On the lower part of the chart, 
what was the total amount that was paid out to the individuals listed 
on that chart? 

Mr. Lackritz. Well, the sum of all the parts from Gemstone all the 
way through all the Segretti individuals, also Mr. Brill, but not includ- 
ing the money spent to Watergate break-in comes to approximately 

Mr. Lenzner. That is all I have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ER\aN. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Berl Bernhard. 

Senator Ervin. Will you raise your right hand ? 

Do you swear that the evidence you shall give to the Senate Select 
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Bernhard. I do. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lenzner will question Mr. Bernhard. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Bernhard, would you state and spell your name 
and give us your address, please? 


Mr. Bernhard. My name is Berl Bernhard, B-e-r-1, last name is 

My law firm address is 1660 L Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. 
I live in Bethesda, Md. 

Mr. Lenzner. And I notice you are accompanied by some materials 
and also individuals. Do you want to identifj^ any of those? 

Mr. Bernhard. Yes; I do. I am not, in fact, represented by counsel 
here, but two of my partners, Ronald Natalie and Harry McPherson 
and John Merrigan, an associate in my firm, are here because of the 
voluminous quantity of data which we brought with us today and on 
which I may need some help. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Bernard, you prepared a statement. 

Would you like to go ahead and begin to read that statement? 


First, perhaps it might be useful if we could just get a brief descrip- 
tion of your prior professional responsibilities and activities before 
you begin. 

Mr. Berniiakd. I have been in Washington, D.C., since 1954. 1 served 
as law clerk to Judge Luther W. Youngdahl for a few years, then I 
went back in private practice. President Kennedy nominated me to be 
Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Right^, I was confirmed by 
the Senate ; and served in that capacity for 2 years. 

I went back into practice and while I was practicing I served as an 
adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University. I also served as a 
consultant to the Office of the Secretary of State for a number of years 
while I was in practice. 

I also had the job as general counsel to the Democratic Senatorial 
Campaign Committee, from which job I resigned when I went into the 
campaign, and to which job I have subsequently been reappointed. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you. Mr. Bernhard. Why don't you go ahead 
and begin now with your statement. 

Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, dur- 
ing this past year. I have had many occasions to reflect on the course 
of Senator Muskie's campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1972. 
I would like to share some of my conclusions with the committee today. 
Although I was deeply involved in the INIuskie effort, first as an ad- 
visor and later as campaign manager, I will try to speak with some ob- 
jectivity about it. 

Living with the memory of having been a key operative in the con- 
duct of a losing Presidential primary effort on behalf of a frontrunner 
is not heartwarming. So at the start, I must confess that I bear a few 
scars. I ask you to please understand that nothing that I say is intended 
to rationalize our defeat in any way whatsoever. We made mistakes 
and those mistakes were costly. 

I am going to talk principally about two aspects of the campaign : 
The problems of financing it, and the problems that came from being 
the No. 1 target of dirty tricks. Tliey are to some extent interrelated, 
since the damage that was done to us by dirty tricks had an impact on 
our ability to raise funds. That impact cannot be precisely measured, 
but I think there is no question of its existence. 

Background of Campaign 

Let me try to put into perspective the nature of the Muskie cam- 
paign. Interest in Senator Muskie as a national leader began during 
the mid-1960's and reached an early peak during his campaign for 
the Vice Presidency in 1968, where he emerged as an articulate, candid 
and attractive public figure — one capable of reconciling some of the 
bitter animosity that had divided the Democratic Party in the wake 
of Chicago and had infected the country as a result of Vietnam, dis- 
orders on the campuses and riots in the cities. 

During 1969 and 1970, a number of people, drawn to him by the 
character of his 1968 campaign, urged him to make a try for the 1972 
nomination. He was interested, but he was also aware that as a Senator 
from Maine with no builtin organizational or institutional base of sup- 
port and with little access to financial resources, the road to the con- 
vention would be very long and very difficult — and it was. 


Subsequently, Senator Muskie spoke on nationwide television in 
response to a speech by President Nixon immediately prior to the 1970 
congressional elections. The quality and forcefulness of that address 
gave new impetus to a })ossible Muskie candidacy. So did an early 
Harris poll of January 1971, which showed Senator Muskie beating 
President Nixon 43 to 40 percent. 

A copy of this poll is contained in exhibit No. 244-1. Also shown in 
that exhibit are poll results for the entire pre-primary and primary 
campaign period. 

1971 Efforts 

During early 1971, he began to travel throughout the country to test 
whether there was genuine interest in him as a candidate. The results 
of those travels were sufficiently encouraging to cause Senator Muskie 
to begin organizing a small campaign staff which had three principal 
responsibilities: policy guidance, political organization, and fund- 
raising. During the following months, a number of capable people 
joined the staff or otherwise committed themselves to work in one or 
another of these areas. By the summer of 1971, he had become the clear 
frontrunner for the 1972 nomination. During the fall of 1971, many 
of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate publicly pledged their sup- 
port to him, as did several Governors and mayors. 

What happened between the spring of 1971 when this effort began 
in earnest and the late sprins: of 1972 when Senator Muskie withdrew 
as an active primary candidate, is well known, so far as the vote 
count in the primaries is concerned. The reasons why the Muskie 
effort failed to succeed are much more complicated. 

To understand what was done and why, let me turn to September 
1971. We had decided during the summer of 1971 that we should come 
out of the corner fast. The strategy was to maintain that impetus 
because Senator Muskie was ahead, and we saw our job as that of 
keeping him there. We planned a 4-month schedule, commencing in 
September and leading into the primaries as a campaign unit. 

I would like to point out here that we have reason to believe, in fact 
know, that this schedule was lifted, copied, and made available to — 
we believe — to agents of the Republican campaign in August 1971. 
I will discuss this matter later on. 

Our heavy schedule was designed to reflect what we once referred 
to as an Ohio State "4 yards and a cloud of dust" campaign. But the 
fact was that our appetite exceeded our digestive abilities. A lack of 
financial resources all the way through the primaries undercut our 
strategy. Media and advertising budorets were slashed, staff reduced 
in number and pay, no funds were made available to a few key primary 

FuNDRAisixG Problems axd Practices 

I would point out in this regard, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the committee, that I have attached under exhibit No. 244-2 a number 
of memos that I have been able to find in our files, a number of memo- 
randums reflecting our payrolls and costs in the campaign and our 
efforts to cut our si>ending at the time. 

Senator Muskie. as you know, represents a State whose small popu- 
lation and limited resources had neither produced nor required great 
financial commitments in his political campaigns. It was, therefore. 


necessary to seek funds from people throughout the country. It may 
be difficuh for anyone who has not campaigned for national office 
or who has not been intimately associated with such a campaign to 
understand the staggering financial requirements involved. Money is 
needed for a central staff ; for communicating with potential supporters 
and advisers; for organizations in each State; for polling; for televi- 
sion, radio, and newspaper promotion ; and for travel not only by the 
Senator but by his staff and by his supporters. Unless a candidate is 
personally wealthy — and Senator Muskie is not — or unless he has 
already developed a corps of wealthy supporters willing to back his 
campaign— and Senator Muskie did not — he must devote an outrage- 
ous part of his time to appealing to people for money. 

The concern about fundraising having to do with the susceptibility 
of a candidate to the special interests of donors, is legitimate. There 
is always the danger of a quid-pro-quo relationship, involving favorit- 
ism for money. In the Muskie campaign, no promises or commitments 
were ever made in return for contributions. 

Senator Muskie's integrity was ])roof against such pressure. Yet all 
his integrity could not protect him from the demands on his time, 
interest and concentration which fundraising represented. Let me be 
specific. When he might have been working out policy positions on the 
issues before the country or develoj^ing contacts with political leaders 
or addressing opinionmaking audiences, his advisers often found it 
necessary to scliedule him at functions which primary purpose was to 
persuade well-to-do people thaJt they should contribute to his campaign. 

Other ])eople — staff members like me or outside supporters — raised 
some of the money required. But much of it — and I emphasize that^ — 
Avas simply unavailable until there w^as eyeball-to-eyeball contact with 
the candidate — until there was what President Johnson used to call a 
"pressing of the flesh." 

Campaign Financing 

On an overall basis, we raised approximately $2.2 million in 1971 
and expended virtually all of it. We raised just under $3 million from 
Januaiy 1, 1972, to the effective date of the new law on April 7, 1972, 
and again expended vii'tually all of that. Except for the initial few 
months of the campaign we w^ere always in the hole. We never had 
enough money to pay our obligations on a current basis. 

I have attached to my statement as exhibit No. 244-3 a month-by- 
month breakdown which shows receipts and expenditures supple- 
mented by an analysis of accounts receivable and payable. Tliis shows 
our deficit position month by month. As J said, we were always in the 
hole and faced with the problem of reducing payroll, media and/or 
other campaign expenses. 

During the campaign, much publicity was given to the fact that we 
were required by lack of funds, to slash our staff and to impose pay 
cuts on the staff. In mid-1971, for example, when we appeared to be 
riding high we experienced an economic cininch. I was forced to lay 
off 10 of our staff people and impose salary cuts on between 10 to 15 
others. Later in the fall of 1971, our operation geared up again and 
reached a peak around February 1972, when we had approximately 
125 salaried employees, paid consultants or weekly wage employees. 


At the end of February 1972, we cut 14 people from the staff and 
made pay cuts to 5 people, and this was just on the threshold of the 
major primaries we were about to enter. Then on March 15, the day 
after the Florida primary, we cut 29 people from the staff ajid made 
other pay cuts. On March 31, 1972, we simply did not pay most of the 
people except for 33 of the lower paid staff. As to the 33 who were paid 
at all, 23 received pay cuts. More detailed information is shown in 
exhibit No. 244-4 breaking down exactly what did occur and what 
period of time. 

After the first few primaries, our finances were in such poor shape 
that we had virtually no money to expend in a number of critical 
primaries. This may sound astoundinof to you but we put no money 
from the national campai<rn into the Illinois primary. In the critical 
IMassachusetts and Pennsylvania primaries, which were the last before 
the Senator withdrew from active campaigning in the primaries, we 
put only $18,000 into Massachusetts and less than $20,000 into Pennsyl- 
vania from the national headquarters. 

Let me address myself to certain questions which have been raised 
in staff interviews or prior testimony. 

FiXAXCE Orgaxization 

First, our fundraising campaign had no rigid structure. There was 
no finance committee to elect ^luskie President. "We operated on a 
rather informal ad hoc basis welcoming the fundraising assistance 
of anyone who indicated a desire to perform that chore. I might tell 
you, in response to some of the questions asked us in our staff inter- 
views, who our chairman and vice chairman were, I can tell you 
one we did not have — a formal chairman. Anyone who wanted to 
participate in fundraising in any serious way I made a vice chairman. 

Senator Baker. That is the usual role for vice chairman? 

Mr. Berxhard. Senator Baker, I can tell you I used to feel very 
much like that story President Johnson used to tell about the foot- 
ball team that was losing. They had the ball down on the other team's 
10-yard line right at the end of the game, and the coach said — called 
them in and said — "Give the ball to Hardhead, the fullback."' The 
first play the quarterback ran it himself and was thrown back 5 yards, 
and then the coach got mad and sent in another play. The quarter- 
back didn't give it to the fullback, it was an end-around, and he got 
thrown for a loss. The coach got furious and called the quarterback 
in and he said. ''"When T said give the ball to Hardhead T meant give 
it to Hardhead. T^Hiy didn't you give the ball to Hardliead?" The 
quarterback said "Because Hardhead doesn't want the ball." and that 
was the problem we had with finance. 

Senator Ervix. Just one moment. I think a Vice President and a 
vice chairman, and things like that — I remember, and this does not 
happen to my vice chairman because I predict for him a srreat future 
as well as a ffreat present, but when Thomas ^Marshall was elected as the 
Vice President and "Woodrow "Wilson as President, he made a state- 
ment to the effect : "Once there were two brothers, one of them went to 
sea and the other one was elected Vice President, and neither one of 
them was ever heard from again." [Laughter.] 


Mr. Berniiard. The story of our finance organization. If I had to, 
in any event, single out the one individual who did more to help 
us, both with contributions and with enlisting the support of others, 
that person would be Arnold Picker, for which eft'ort he earned 
the No. 1 spot on the White House "Enemies" list. However, he was 
not a finance chairman in any formal sense. Our fundraising effort 
in\'olved many techniques — from a direct mail campaign, which proved 
relatively successful, to direct appeals at dinners, receptions, and so 
on, and I have tried to give you a breakdown in my exhibits of the 
direct mail and other information. 

A report on the results of the direct mail campaign, a list of proposed 
fundraising affairs and the results of some are included in exhibit 
No. 244-5. 

Now, w^e maintained records which I have here, of all contributions 
coming into the campaign headquarters from January 1, 1971, through 
a daily ledger and those ledgers have been available to the committee 
since June of 1973. 

Practices and Committees 

In an effort to assure that our fundraising effort complied with the 
existing law, we disseminated a number of memos setting guidelines 
for fundraisers, and I have attached those guidelines as exhibit 
No. 244—6. Because I wanted my own view of the law to be reviewed by 
an outside source, I sent to Mr. Mortimer Caplin, former Commissioner 
of the IRS, a memo setting forth guidelines and asked for his opinion, 
which I received, approving the fundraising guidelines and I have 
attached that letter as exhibit No. 244—7. We had many committees. I 
don't know how many exactly, but there were well over 200. Some of 
these committees were created exclusively for gift tax purposes. Many 
others were operating committees, raising funds and providing funds 
in primaries or convention States. We have made available to the staff 
of the committee a list of all of our committees. 


The question of the acceptance of anonymous or confidential con- 
tributions has come up in the course of these hearings. Prior to April 7. 
1972, when the new Campaign Financing Disclosure Act became 
effective, it was entirely lawful to maintain the anonymity of those who 
did not wish to have their names identified with our campaign. A num- 
ber of people who contributed funds to us requested and were given a 
pledge of anonymity and confidentiality for understandable, largely 
personal, reasons. 

I would point out that these contributions were all logged in the 
books as "anonvmous." We count $343,000 of such gifts from January 
1971 to April 6,"^ 1972. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, could I intcriiipt the witness at that 
point. I won't take very long but we had a rather prolonged and ex- 
tended conversation with ]\Ir. Stans about the philosophy involved in 
the right to anonymity. Do you think that the right to anonymity 
that existed pre-April 7 had any substanial effect on the willingness 
or unwillingness of contributors to contribute? 


Mr. Bernhard. I think prior to April 7 it may have had an im- 
pact, Senator Baker, on some people's willingness to contribute, and 
I will tell you why. It was not a uniform practice. It was not a uni- 
form law which was applicable to everyone, and here is the kind of 
situation we had. One of our contributor in southern California 
had his son kidnaped. This resulted in a number of the larger con- 
tributors in southern California requesting anonymity for fear or be- 
coming publicly identified. We had other situations where a husband 
contributed to our campaign unbeknownst to his wife, who happened 
to be supporting another candidate. Those things will have to be 
worked out in advance in the future. We had other situations where 
individuals were afraid that thev had never been in a political cam- 
paign before and once they had gotten on the list as a major con- 
tributor, everybody would ask them for money. There were many rea- 
sons like this expressed to us. The concern was that since there was 
a common practice of anonymity and since there were some people 
who were talking about disclosures, others who were not, they were 
fearful of being singled out and I should emphasize that many of our 
contributors were deeply concerned about potential retribution from 
the administration in power to their business interests and to their 
involvements. Whether it was fanciful or a real concern it was there, 
and I must say when the revelation of the "Enemies" list came out I 
sure heard about our voluntary disclosure. 

Senator Baker. May I say that I think this is an important area 
that the committee will examine, and I Avon't prolong this inquiry at 
this point, but when it comes to my regular turn I would like to press 
it a little further and invite your thoughts to the balance of equities 
between requirements for the desirability of anonymity versus the 
requirement and desirability of full disclosure. It seems there are 
valid and good arguments on both sides and I am not at peace with 
my own mind as to how those equities could be balanced so rather than 
pursue that now I will pursue it later. 

Mr. Berxhard. I do have some thoughts on it and I would be glad 
to pursue it. 

Senator Baker. Thank you. 

Mr. Berxhard. One other fact that you should know : because of 
the constant leaking of information and the disappearance of materials 
from our campaign, I became concerned that we could not, in good 
faith, promise confidentiality if we could not keep that promise. I 
therefore set up a system whereby checks or cash received under 
promises of confidentiality would only be received in sealed envelopes, 
put in my office, and then ffiven, still unopened, to an individual who 
would deposit them in the bank. This assured that the depositor 
would not know the names of the cash contributors, and that I would 
not know exactly how much specific individuals who asked for confi- 
dentiality had given. I am reasonably satisfied that this method 
worked and I think it Avas the only oj^eration that I know of in the 
campaign that didn't result in major leaks. There was no illegality 
involved and the motives we have discussed and explained to us for 
the request for anonvmity suggested no impropriety. We tried to be 
careful not to accept contributions from people who might liave a 
special interest or axe to grind. We had no power to coerce contribu- 
tions and we did not try to invent such a power. 



Let me comment on the question of cash contributions. We received 
cash contributions. I do not know, quite frankly, the total amount of 
those contributions, although I have tried to piece them together over 
the last week or so, since cash and checks were all listed as part of 
contributions received under the same account column and that will 
be reflected and is reflected in the book. My best estimate is that during 
the year and a half of our campaign, we may have received in the 
neighborhood of $150,000 in cash. I cannot prove that figure. 

Quite frankly, cash contributions were discouraged. But when peo- 
ple gave us cash, routine practice was to immediately deposit cash in 
our checking accounts the day received, or if after banking hours, the 
following day. As a result, your investigators can follow the trail of 
expenditures of cash receipts, as well as of others, by examining our 
books, and I understand that this has been done. 

We maintained two safes at our campaign headquarters and kept 
a small amount of cash in at least one of them. One safe, which was 
in an office next to mine, was secured primarily because of the con- 
tinuing leaks of campaign materials and the appearance of such infor- 
mation in the press as well as the apparent theft and photocopying of 
documents which, although never surfacing in the press, we had reason 
to assume were in the hands of people who wished us ill. Small amounts 
of cash, probably no more than $'2,000 at a time, were kept in that 
safe. The purpose was to handle emergency and petty cash needs. All 
other expenditures were made by check. 


Let me make some very short observations in addition. I assure you 
there were no funds expended for dirty tricks or espionage or any 
like activity. The campaign was reflective of the candidate and I 
knew — and we all knew — that he would not tolerate such activity. 

We did receive some stock contributions. These contributions were all 
recorded at the appreciated value of the stock. Stock contributions were 
promptly sold and converted to income, and the entry on our books, 
in each case, is the net proceeds to our committee — that is to say. the 
selling price of the stock less commissions and transfer taxes. One of 
our supporters obtained an opinion for himself on the proper treatment 
of stock contributions. We followed it and I have attached that as 
exhibit No. 244-8. 


Xow, to the best of my information and belief but subject always to 
surprise, we did not accept money from corporations, national banks, 
or labor unions. Our instructions to our fundraisers made it clear that 
no such contributions were to be received. We did return certain mon- 
eys, which when they arrived, appeared to be drawn on the treasury 
of a corporation, and some of those letters of return are attached as 
exhibit No. 244-9. 


I hope that many recommendations for reform of campaign financ- 
ing will emerge from these hearings. If I had to choose the one reform 


which is most urgently needed, it would be the public financing of 
campaigns, not because Ed Muskie ran out of money, but because he, 
and Senator Humphrey, and Senator Jackson, and Senator McGovem, 
and all the rest of them had to spend so much time just passing the hat. 
Americans deserve candidates who have enough time to consider the 
issues, enough funds to present their views to the voters, and to com- 
pete equally on the merits — not men who make the best fundraisers, 
because they appeal to pa? ticular interest groups, or because they are 
in a position to put pressure on people with money. 

Basic Influences on Campaign 

Lest I be misunderstood, I know there were factors other than 
money which had to do with the decline of the Muskie campaign. Let 
me very briefly address some of these factors. 

First, there was the proliferation of Democratic primaries. Senator 
Muskie was ahead in the polls in 1971, but he was still regarded as 
essentially a New Englander. We had to establish him as the choice 
of Democrats in every region. We had hoped he would not have to 
share the broad middle of the party with any other candidate. We 
hoped his victories in the early primaries would discourage such com- 
petition from entering the race. We also saw the possibility of taking 
a commanding lead in the first few primaries. Perhaps it would have 
been better to have taken another strategy more attuned to our finan- 
cial ability. But that is hindsight, and I am not sure another tack 
would have really served us better. 

Second, was the polarization within the Democratic Party. The 
so-called new politics wing of the party was embittered by the bloody 
struggles of 1968 in the Chicago streets, was frustrated by Senator 
Humphrey's nomination in 1968, and by what they regarded as the 
continuing control of the party by the old guard. Traditional Demo- 
crats, on the other hand, thought they had been betrayed or abandoned 
by the new politics people in the fall of 1968, and that the election of 
President Nixon resulted therefrom. 

So the prevailing temper, as primary time arrived, was not accom- 
modation but vindication, and these primaries became message laden. 
Many Democrats were prepared to give no quarter. George Wallace's 
slogan, "Send * * * a message" accurately reflected the mood. Many 
Democrats saw the primaries as their moment to vent individual griev- 
ances which they could best do by finding a single champion for their 
greatest concern — to end the war, for strong defense, for civil rights, 
busing — pro and con — jobs, inflation, personal security, the unrespon- 
siveness of Government, and you know all the rest. A centrist candidate 
was caught in the crossfire of these passions. Our coalition strategy 
with the essential message "Send them a President" was engulfed. 
What we learned in State after State was that the vast majority of 
Democrats who had other champions for specific grievances none- 
theless would name Senator Muskie as their second choice, but we 
needed first place, not second place, votes. This phenomenon was shown 
no more vividly than in the poll taken by Daniel Yankelovich As- 
sociates as voters were leaving the election booths in Florida. It showed 
Florida voters believed Senator Muskie was the only candidate for 
President who could beat Richard Nixon. 


As I will point out later, some of the dirty tricks increased the 
polarization and exacerbated our eflfoits at accommodation. The same 
can be said of a third problem of the Muskie campaign, and that was 
the squeeze in which we found ourselves, and the lack of base which 
could help Senator ]Muskie survive that squeeze. When Senator Hum- 
phrey entered the race beginning in Florida, it meant that Senator 
Muskie would contest for the Democratic center with a man who had 
developed intense loyalties within that center over 24 years in national 
politics. Blacks. Jews, labor, farmers, the elderly, and many elected 
officials had long felt Senator Humphrey to be their spokesman. They 
had seen him almost close the gap in the final weeks of the 1968 cam- 
paign and when he called on them once more in 1972, they responded. 
A'\niile it is my belief that Senator Muskie was making inroads into 
the Humphrey strength, some of the dirty tricks which were practiced, 
particularly in Florida, went to undermine that support for Senator 

Union Leader Incident 

Let me not bypass the event that occurred in Xew Hampshire. Wil- 
liam Loeb, publisher of the Manchester Union leader, whose stock and 
trade is to personally attack people he dislikes of both parties, had 
printed the famous Canuck letter and he published some loathsome 
distortions about Senator Muskie's wife. A copy of the Canuck letter, 
as well as a related "letter" surfacing during the general election cam- 
paign and an explanatory news item are contained in exhibit No. 2-4-1— 
10. I have attached that letter in my statement. Senator Muskie made 
an emotional speech outside the L^nion Leader offices in Manchester. 
After discussing the Canuck letter, the Senator turned to what some 
members of this committee have quite accurately described as the 
hatchet job on Mrs. Muskie. Now perhaps there are some men who 
would not become outraged when their waves are maligned, but our 
candidate was not one of them. He is a compassionate and feeling 
human being, not a cold-blooded, insensate political animal. That is 
exactly what attracted many of us to him in the first place and con- 
vinced us he would be a great President. 


I doubt that I will be accused of hyperbole to observe that it would 
have been politically better had he not shown his feeling so openly. 
But he did, and the incident was seized upon and magnified by the 
press. From that point on, it took on a life of its own. 

That was because Senator Muskie was the front-runner, which is a 
risky status because the natural instinct in the press and among poli- 
ticians and other people generally is to examine a front-runner under 
a microscope. Faults and virtues are sometimes magnified. Because he 
is a favorite, he is supposed to win big. So a mere victory, as Muskie 
won in New Hampshire, was insufficient; he had to swamp the opposi- 
tion to be seen as winning at all. And if he comes in fourth as he did 
in Florida, it is not simply a redeemable setback, as it should have 
been by his subsequent large victory in Illinois, it is a collapse, and a 
win in Illinois only postponed the funeral. Consistent victory is de- 
manded and where financial resources are thin, and when you have 


to spread them over many primaries, and when a half a dozen serious 
candidates are competing for that vote, consistent victories are simply 
hard to come by. 

Dirty Tricks — Their Purpose 

And so we get to the role of dirty tricks. There is one point, and it 
may be the only point where I am in full agreement with the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President, with the White House, and probably 
with the Republican National Committee. That point is that Senator 
Muskie posed by far the most serious threat to the President's reelec- 
tion of any of the Democratic candidates. I believed that then, and I 
believe it now. So did Jeb Magruder. In a memo to Attorney General 
Mitchell on July 28, 1971, he said : 

The clear and present political danger is that Senator Muskie, the favorite in 
the early primaries, will promenade through the primaries, come into the con- 
vention with a clear majority and enormous momentum for November. That 
would be bad news for us. 

So it would appear to have been natural that he attracted the major- 
ity of the Republican "dirty tricks." I say "natural" with some hesita- 
tion because I am in full agreement with Frank Mankiewicz that there 
was nothing natural, customary or even precedented about CREP's 
1972 sabotage and espionage efforts, and I think this is a pretty accu- 
rate quote, and I remember ISIuskie saying it to me at a very early 
stage : 

I do not want you or anybody connected with our campaign to do anything in 
the primaries which is inconsistent with winning in the general election and with 
reconciling the Democratic Party. 

We all interpreted that as a clear mandate that there would be noth- 
ing of an underhanded, duplicitas, or scurrilous nature directed 
against any of our competitors. I think it a fundamental political 
truth that the campaign reflects the candidate and those of us working 
for the Senator knew he would never tolerate such activities. Senator 
Baker has stated on more than one occasion during these hearings 
that if he had heard reports of unethical conduct in his campaign, he 
would be on the phone immediately, demanding to know what the devil 
was going on. Senator Muskie would have done the same — and the 
prospect of having to respond to an outraged candidate is a powerful 

I do not know an iota of evidence, one speck of evidence, that Sena- 
tor ^Nluskie or his campaign operation engaged in anything that comes 
in the category of dirty tricks, in any sense, in any manner. I might 
also observe that we have be«n accused of not engaging even in clean 

I do not mean to suggest that Senator Muskie did not campaign 
hard. He did. He attacked his opponents' positions on the issues, and 
he tried to win over their supporters to his side. Ed INIuskie is a suc- 
cessful and experienced political man and he knows that politics is a 
body-contact sport. What he did not expect was that it would be a sport 
where he and his Democratic competitors would play by certain ele- 
mentary rules, while outsiders to the primaries would behave like cun- 
ning barbarians. Their lack of political ethics was matched only by 
their fear of a fair contest, and by the money at their disposal. 

The term "dirty tricks" does not do justice to the slimy deceptions 
that characterized the CREP campaign. "Dirty tricks" suggests that 


sort of cleverness we associate with today's Halloween pranks. 
In fact, there was nothing very clever about it. Anybody could come 
up with a Canuck letter, or the villification of Senators Jackson and 
Humphrey and Governor Wallace which was made to appear the work 
of the Muskie campaign. It did not take political genius to accomplish 
those things. It took, as I have suggested, a certain low cunning and 
a lot of money. 

Basic Groundrules 

Let me turn now to specific dirty tricks and try to describe their 
effect on our campaign. A few of the perpetrators of these have been 
repentant; others have not. I am not so much concerned about their 
repentance as I am about what they did to pervert and distort the 
1972 campaign, and about the long-term consequences for America if 
their attitude toward politics prevails — that winning justifies any- 
thing. When it leads our children to cheat to win the soapbox derby, 
that is bad enough. But when it leads ostensibly mature citizens to 
cheat an entire citizenry in choosing its Chief Executive, that is 

It is not always a simple matter, as the committee has discovered, 
to make precise philosophic distinctions between rough but fair poli- 
tics and rough unfair politics. Sometimes the differences are matters 
of degree. Heckling a speaker is a traditional part of British politics, 
and it is occasionallv practiced here in a way I would not condemn. 
But systematic heckling — intended either to drown out the speaker 
altogether or to make it impossible for him to convev his thoughts and 
opinions to an audience — is profoundly undemocratic. I would always 
have like to know^ what the opposition was doing— and I would be 
less than honest if I did not say that I would have listened to a defector 
from anotlier campaign if he appeared before me to tell me what 
he knew of that campaign's strategy — but I would not have planted 
an agent in that campaign whose job it was to steal documents and 
make them available to me and to the press. 

It is fair to tell voters that your opponent's record is proof that 
he would not do much for them if elected. 

It is fair to circulate bona fide documentation of your opponent's 
record in an effort to turn the voters against him. 

, It is not fair to deceive those voters with signs and bumper stickers 
that appear to be but are not sponsored by your opponent, and which 
carrv messaflfes that are certain to turn the voters asrainst him. 

It is not fair to harass the voters with after-midnight canvassing 
calls which are alleged to be made in your opponent's behalf. 

It is not fair to plant a Iving letter in the local newspapers, reporting 
that vour opponent has uttered racist epithets. 

It is not fair to publish a scurrilous "factsheet" that shockingly 
misrepresents a candidate's career, family, and beliefs. 

It is not fair to put a telephone tap on your opponent's advisers. 

It is fair to trv to place your opponent in a position that makes 
him most vulnerable to defeat, but not through techniques I have just 

It is fair to play up your own virtues, and ventilate your opponent's 
defects. But it is not fair to try to Avin an election by the kind of 
fraud and deception that was the hallmark of the 1972 campaign. 


I've used the word "opponent" in these remarks in a spex?ial sense. 
The object of the frauds and deceptions which occurred in the 1972 
primaries was usually Senator Muskie. The common perpetrators of 
the frauds and exceptions were not his opponents in the primaries, 
but people in the Republican Party who so feared his nomination by 
the Democrats that they intervened to prevent that event by foul 
means as well as fair. It was their purpose to hold him up to ridicule ; 
to estrange him, not only from his supporters, but from other Demo- 
cratic candidates and their supporters ; to create suspicion and turmoil 
in his staff; to establish that his ability to manage a national operation 
was suspect; to divert his energies, and those of his staff, from the 
task of pursuing the nomination to the desperate w^ork of limiting the 
damage they had caused. They feared his name on the ballot in No- 
vember 1972 and so they went after him a year before. As far back 
as March 24, 1971, Pat Buchanan wrote to President Nixon as follows : 

And if Mr. Muskie is not cut and bleeding before he goes into New Hampshire, 
he will very likely do massively well there, building up irresistible momentum 
for the nomination. This scenario is not in our interest — as Muskie today is a 
figure ideally situated to unite the warring faction of his party, and if they are 
united that is bad news for us. 

I would point out that this was a period in time wdien Senator 
Muskie was leading President Nixon in the national Harris Poll 47 
percent to 39 percent with Governor George Wallace included in the 
poll. With Governor Wallace excluded. Senator Muskie was leading 
President Nixon head-on-head, 48 i^ercent to 42 percent in February 
and 50 percent to 44 percent in April 1971. 

Whittier College Incident 

I will describe some of the attempts to leave Senator Muskie "cut 
and bleeding." Let's begin with an early Segretti effort on November 
8, 1971, at Whittier College in California — the President's alma mater. 

Wlien I arrived at Wliittier College, everything was tranquil. 
Just short of an hour before the Senator arrived to speak, great num- 
bers of individuals, mostly black and Mexican-American, arrived 
armed with placards. The pickets took their positions along the entire 
walk leading from the street to the auditorium. There was such signs 
as, "Would you take a Chicano as a running mate?" Also, "Muskie is 
a racist pig." There was some inconsistent signs, one reading "Muskie 
supports draft dodgers," and another, "Muskie is against amnesty." 
Then there were many signs dealing with gay liberation. 

The Senator's speech was well received. Then the questions came. 
Individuals kept interrupting the Senator when he tried to answer 
questions and all the questions seemed to deal Avith gay liberation, a 
Chicano or black running mate or abortion. 

A copy of the list of questions distributed by Mr. Segretti's opera- 
tive is contained in exhibit 244-11 [previously entered as committee 
exhibit No, 201 and appears in Book 10, p. 4270]. 

Senator Muskie, I think, handled all of this with £rre,at equanimity, 
which apparently was an irritant to Mr. Dwight Chapin, who sub- 
sequently sent Mr. Segretti a news report stating that "Big Ed proved 
he could keep his cool," to which Mr. Chapin penned "let's prove he 


\ A copy of the President's news summary with Mr. Chapin's com- 
: plaint that Segretti had "missed the boat" is contained in exhibit No. 
244-12 [previously entered as committee exhibit No. 202 and appears 
inBooklO, p. 4271]. 

That same weekend, I believe on November 7, Senator Muskie went 
to speak at a Mexican-American restaurant in Los Angeles. AVlien he 
went in, there were neither pickets nor other disruption. When he came 
out, there were organized pickets, and in addition, television cameras 
which were not a part of the traveling media. The pickets were 
boisterous, shouting at the Senator and then, in an orchestrated move, 
they started throwing eggs at Senator Muskie and at the cars which 
were being used to take him to his next stop. 

i The question might be asked and asked legitimately, what eifect did 
this variety of planned chaos have on the campaign and its strategy? 
The effect on his immediate audience was to prevent them from ex- 
changing views. Beyond that, it disrupted our strategy. We had deter- 
mined previously that the Senator was best at confrontation situations 
and at questions and answei-s. But if we were going to get into a situa- 
tion where questions on abortion, amnesty, legalization of marihuana, 
and gay liberation were clearly planted, and the questioners were or- 
ganized to drown out all other questions, that strategy would have to 
be abandoned. Egg-throwing and the like would also create the image 
of a tumultuous, disorganized campaign, possibly leading to violence. 

The Purloined Papers 

Testimony has already been given to this committee regarding the 
stealing of documents going between me and Senator Muskie on the 
Hill during the period August 1971 through April 1972. Those in- 
volved were "Fat Jack" Buckley, Elmer Wyatt, and Thomas Gregory. 
I There may have been others, but I do not know their names. They had 
been planted in our campaign by the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi- 

There are specific instances where inside jobs, whether performed by 
Buckley, Wyatt, Gregory, or some other Re])ublican plant, disrupted 
staff planning and hurt the Senator's position among groups whose 
support he desperately needed. 

Suggested Property Tax Hearing 

Stolen letters went into a report of Evans and Novak dealing with 
1 a staff-suggested property tax hearing in California. Some of the staff 
had recommended to me that the Senator participate in hearings on the 
problem, on the theory that it would be helpful in the campaign. Since 
he would be in California on December 20 and 21, 1971, the suggestion 
was that it could be woi-ked out simultaneously. Robert Novak printed 
: a critical article on using property tax hearings as part of the cam- 
paign. I have attached that article as exhibit No. 244-13. 

This article came as a surprise to Senator Muskie, who called me and 
asked what it was all about. He had never seen the memos, and I had 
not made a personal recommendation. I called Mr. Novak. He said a 
memo on the subject was sent to him in a plain brown envelope. Again, 
this undermined the character of the campaign. It made Senator 
Muskie appear unscrupulously opportunistic. I received many calls 

21-5J-d O - 74 - pt. U 


criticiziiifr this purported misuse of Government funds as part of a 
political campaign. I heard about it not only immediately after the 
article came out, but subsequently in New Hampshire and in Florida. 
These may seem rather isolated acts of disruption. In fact, they were 
part of a long train of sabotage commencing in December 1970, when 
the first break-in occurred. 

I was still in private practice, but I was doing a good deal of work 
with the Muskie Election Committee. I had a number of files in my law 
office relating to the effort being undertaken to assist the Senator in 
deciding whether to seek the nomination. My law office was broken into, 
and my files ransacked. A number of Muskie-related files were found 
in the Xerox room and there were a substantial number of unrecorded 
Xerox charges on our machine. This matter was reported to the Metro- 
politan Police. It was reported to your committee's staff several 
months ago, and you may have uncovered information to which I am 
not privy. 

In addition to what you know about the work of "Fat Jack" Buckley, 
Thomas Gregory, and Elmer AVyatt, there were other specific instances 
of surveillance or infiltration or attempted infiltration. One involved 
a young woman named Diane Moore, a 24-year-old researcher for the 
Republican National Committee who contributed $25 to our campaign 
and indicated in a penned note she would contribute more after Christ- 
mas. Things were a little tight then. She appended a note in addition 
to her contribution offering advice on tactics to turn President NixoU; 
out of office. ; 

Fortunately, the press learned of this attempt at infiltration before 
we did. Had they not done so and revealed it, we might very well have 
taken up her offer as a volunteer. Her superior at the Kepublican Na- 
tional Committee, Robert Chase, when confronted by a phone call from 
us, replied, "I just donY want to talk about it." 

A copy of a New York Times article recounting the Diane Moore 
affair more fully is exhibit No. 244—14. 

Another employee of the Republican National Committee, John 
Lofton, editor of ]Monday, was caught snooping around at a private 
weekend meeting of INIuskie supporters in Kennebunkport, Maine. This 
caused turmoil, and I think that is an understatement, at the weekend 
meeting. It raised questions as to why the Republicans had involved 
themselves directly in a Muskie meeting. Although John Lofton j 
worked for the Republican National Committee rather than CREP, a, 
A^'ery few days after the meeting, ]Mr. Strachan sent INIr. Dean a list of 
the "fat cats" in attendance for use in the political enemies project. 

A copy of Mr. Strachan's memo and the attached fat cat list is 
attached as exhibit No. 241—15 [previously entered as committee exhibit 
No. 52, and appears in Book 4, p. 1700] , 

Of far greater significance and deep consternation was the lifting 
and photocopying of the major campaign advance and scheduling pro- 
posals for the fall and winter of 1971 and 1972. This material had been 
completed in August 1971 and because it was clearly and unequivocally 
the most vital document we had put together, only two copies were 
made. Within a few days after its production, a copv disappeared from 
the desk of Eliot Cutler, the Senator's chief scheduler. Now. with some 
reservations and in the interest of trying to give you the full import 
of this particular document, I have attached it as exhibit No. 244-16. 


I think all of you who are actively involved in politics will get some 
'idea of the detail and import of that particular document. 
, ' We advised your staff of the removal of this document because we 
had found, as I indicated, that it was found in the campaign's Xerox 
machine; the staples had been removed, and we do not know more 
about who might have taken it. But what is important about this docu- 
ment is that it was reflective of our entire political strateg}'. It stated 
where the Senator was going, for what purposes; what States or con- 
ventions we might choose to consider lightly. It made possible the 
focus of disruptive attention on the planned activities. 

It created suspicion as to whether we had a spy among our own 
staff and a number of days were dissipated in tiying to ascertain what 
had happened. Beyond all that, it left me with the following questions : 

Which of our Democratic opponents had it or might have use 
of it? 
How could it be used? 

How could we change some of our strategy to avoid being under- 
cut by our competitors? 

Would they use it to go to convention States where we were not 
going or to enter the primary States we were not entering? 

They were tough questions and we tried to make some adjustment 
as a result of these questions, but could not possibly deviate too far 
from a basic strategy of that depth. 

That was not the only major theft. On two occasions, raw polling 

data disappeared from the desk of Anna Navarro, our polling expert. 

In the summer of 1971, the entire New Jersey poll Avas taken during 

the night. In the winter of 1971, the entire New Hampshire poll was 

I stolen during a period of 5 minutes when Anna had come up to 

1 my office to tell me it Avas ready. ^Mien she went to get it, it was gone. 

! That was not simply a poll of where we stood, but reflected specific 

strengths and weaknesses in New Hampshire, which issues should 

be emphasized and which not. It was a document of real value to 

any opponent, and it would certainly have been of value to the 

CREP if they were pursuing a program, as they appeared to have 

been, of embarrassing Senator Muskie. 

Our immediate result of the New Hampshire polling disappearance 
was that we no longer held general staff meetings of a coordinated 
nature to discuss polling results. If one wanted to see a poll after 
that occurred, they had to come to my office or Anna Navarro's office 
to see it. Again, I ask the same questions about the polling data : 

\Vlio had it? 

Who on my staff might be the thief ? 

How deep was staff disloyalty? 

T\niat use could be made of the information? 

Could we do anything to counter it? 

So much for stolen documents. 

On to fraud, forgery, and political conniving. 

You have in your files a memo to President Nixon from Patrick 
Buchanan, dated June 9, 1971, which reads as follows: 

Buchanan's view : Kennedy is keeping his options open — against the possi- 
bility that RX may be so strong by summer 1972 that the nomination will not be 
worth anything. In which event, he can stay out. However, at this point, he and 
his people have obviously concluded RX can be beaten — and they are not about 


to sit this one out — risking spending eight years outside the inner circle of power i 
of a President Humphrey or a President Muskie. If Kennedy believes the Demo- ( 
crats can win — as he quite apparently does now — he will go after the 

We had no desire to alienate Senator Ted Kennedy and the many j 
Democrats who supported him. We believed many would support us. i 
Some 7 weeks after Patrick Buchanan's memo, the following occurred j 
on July 28, 1971. A Harris poll entitled : "51 Percent Say Ted Is T^nfit | 
for "N^Hiite House" was distributed widely in an envelope which was i 
an offset facsimile of Senator Muskie's stationery, bearing his name i 
in the upper left-hand corner. I have attached that as exhibit No. ; 

This fraud was distributed to Democratic Members of the House 
and Senate, Democratic Governors, and leading Democrats around 
the country. I have enclosed a partial list of recipients in exhibit Xo. 
244-18. The response to the receipt of this fraud was immediate. 
Phone calls went to the Senator's office and my office criticizing us for 
a "low blow" — an attempt to elevate ourselves at Senator Kennedy's 

Great effort went into contacting Senators, Representatives, and 
leading citizens alerting them that this was a fraud. A copy of a dis- 
claimer letter sent out widely by Senator Muskie as part of this effort v 
may be found in exhibit No. 244-19. But this matter was covered in I 
the press. How were we to know that suspicion did not linger, to j 
surface when other reprehensible matters -were distributed under our j 
name? Senator Kennedy was gracious and understanding. Senator 
Muskie wrote to the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General 
wrote back. The matter was investigated, but the culprit was never 
found. I have attached that exchange of correspondence as exhibit i 
No. 244-20. 

New Hampshire 

Let me point out two additional factors affecting New Hampshire 
and also related to Senator Kennedy. First, during the "week before 
the New Hampshire primary, Dick Stewart, our press secretary, came 
in to see me about a call he had received from the AP in Boston to 
confirm the following: AP had received a phoned-in statement from 
someone asserting he was Mr. Stewart's assistant, who gave the Muskie 
Washington headquarters telephone number as a contact number, and 
who then read AP the following statement : 

Ted Kennedy has become an obstacle and an issue in the New Hampshire 
primary. I challenge him to come to New Hampshire and once and for all tell 
the people whether or not he is a candidate for President. 

Dick was upset because he thought that ))erhaps someone in our cam- 
paign had determined to do that without clearing the matter with him. 
And these things do occasionally happen in a campaign. I told him 
that it was preposterous and everything should be done to kill that 
story. I cite it as the kind of disruption of staff activity which is 
harmful. It diverted our senior staffs' attention from the primary 
at a crucial time. 

Second, of far greater significance were the literally hundreds, per- 
haps thousands, of phone calls which were made in the Manchester 
area of New Hampshire during the week to week and a half prior to 
the primary. Callers identifying themselves as canvassers from the 


"Harlem for Muskie Committee" urged the citizens to vote for Muskie 
because he would be "so good for the black man.'- These calls were being 
made between 12 at night and 3 in the morning. They did not strike 
me as advantageous. The black vote in New Hampshire may amount to 
1 or 2 percent. But if it had amounted to 50 percent, it would still have 
hurt us. No one is favorably disposed toward any candidate who has 
people calling or appears to have people calling between 12 midnight 
and 3 in the morning. These calls resulted in many calls to me indi\'id- 
ually in Washington, D.C., complaining about our dumb campaign tac- 
tics, and they also resulted in calls from our campaign coordinator 
in New Hampshire, to see if there was any action I could take to stop 
them. The only thing I could think of doing was to call McGovern 
headquarters to tell tliem to cut it out. My recollection is that I spoke 
to Frank Mankiewicz, the McGovern political director, since I had as- 
sumed that the calls were McGovern-inspired. They denied that they 
had anything to do with this and the calls continued. 

The second part of the disruptive telephone strategy involved post- 
midnight calls from people alleging that they were canvassers for Mus- 
kie and asking how the people intended to vote. These calls apparently 
went beyond Manchester. I was informed that the recipients of these 
calls would sometimes receive three or four calls in rapid succession 
on the same evening. The source of all of these phone calls has neA^er 
been uncovered, but I think it soured many people toward our cam- 
paign in New Hampshire. 

Impact in New Hampshire 

I have been asked by the committee to evaluate whether or not any 
of this activity can be quantified in terms of harm. It is not easy, but 
let me try. One measure is the comparison of the results of the primary 
vote in the city of Nashua with those in the city of Manchester. Nashua 
is in the southern part of New Hampshire, and has a relatively liberal 
city newspaper and a liberal voting background. McCarthy, for ex- 
ample, had run neck and neck with President Johnson in 1968 in 
Nashua and ]SIcGovern had expected to do well in Nashua. Nashua was 
also the home of his campaign manager, Joe Grandmaison. What hap- 
pened? Muskie won in Nashua with a total vote percentage of 58 per- 
cent. Thirty miles to the north of Nashua is the city of Manchester, 
slightly more working class, a little more conservative. We expected a 
larger margin for Muskie in Manchester than in Nashua. In 1968 
President Johnson had beat McCarthy soundly in Manchester and sur- 
rounding towns. Yet, Muskie received only 38 percent of the vote in 
Manchester, a full 20 points lower than his showing in Nashua. 

Another tool of evaluation is the impact in comparable working 
class French-Canadian neighborhoods in the State of New Hampshire. 
Let me be precise. McGovern won ward 14 in Manchester with 35 per- 
cent of the vote, with Muskie running in that same ward 13 points 
lower than his statewide total. That result startled the press, for ward 
14 is a French-Canadian blue-collar ward which had gone heavily for 
President Johnson in 1968. 

Compare that with ward 7 in Nashua, composed of similar French- 
Canadian working class Democrats as in Manchester's w-ard 14. In the 
Nashua ward, Senator Muskie swamped McGovern bv a marerni of 
well over 2 to 1, winning 66 percent of the vote to McGovern's 28 per- 


cent, a staggering 32 points higher than he had received in the same 
kind of neighborhood in IManchester. 

I am grateful to Mr. Lanny Davis, who served as the campaign's 
national youth coordinator, for preparing this vote analysis to assist 
me in my testimony. 

Had Manchester returned the vote we had reasonably expected and 
which we received throughout the rest of the State, it is certain that 
Senator Muskie would have received more than 50 percent of the vote 
in New Hampshire. And since the press had set a public standard of 
50 percent. New Hampshire would have represented a major win 
rather than what was written off as at best a marginal victory, and at 
worst, a setback because it was his neighbor State. 


The Florida primary was held on March 14, just a week after the 
New Hampshire primary. Despite the fact that we had won in New 
Hampshire and had won in the Arizona convention, our financial situa- 
tion was bleak. I had already cut the Florida budget by 50 percent 
from its first projection; and with the issue of busing on the ballot, 
we knew we were in for a hard time. Gov. George Wallace was cam- 
paigning hard against busing, the space industries were in trouble, and 
there was the proliferation of candidates. 

You have heard about many of the disruptive activities in Florida. 
You have heard about the February 8, 1972, ad reading, "Muskie, 
Why Won't You Consider a Jew as a' Vice President ?" Samples of the 
copy used in this and other ads are reproduced in exhibit 244-21 [pre- 
viously entered as committee exhibit No. 204 and appears in Book 10, 
p. 4275]. 

This was run in a Miami Beach JeAvish newspaper, and fliers with 
a similar message were distributed. i 

We were aware of that. One that you may not have heard about is a 
scurvy little flier which was shown to me in Miami Beach by a rabbi 
after we had been discussing an individual member of his congrega- 
tion who said he would never vote for a Polish-Catholic. The flier 
read, "Eemember the Warsaw Ghetto." At the bottom in small letters 
was written, "Vote Right on March 14." 

The busing issue was critical in Florida. Posters were distributed 
starting late in February intended to establish Muskie as a proponent 
of massive busing. The 'posters read, "Help Muskie Support Busing 
More Children Now," put out by the Mothers Backing Muskie Com- 
mittee. We received immediate reports of concern, mostly from our 
Tampa office. After we received the calls and I talked with our people 
in Florida, it was agreed that wherever we could, we would try to 
remove such posters, and I understand that some of the people in the 
office did so. I also contacted other district managers seeking to as- 
certain the extent of distribution. I was informed that pictures of 
some of these ads appeared in newspapers, particularly in northern 
and central Florida. My information is that these probusing state- 
ments appeared in Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando, Tampa, St. Peters- 
burg, and the Clearwater area. The extent to which the Senator's 
position was incorrectly stated made it difficult to try to clarify and 
to explain his true position, which would have allowed local school 
boards to retain options to achieve desegregation, rather than being 


denied that right through Federal legislation then proposed. I talked 
with our media people about cutting new TV spots, but the time was 
as short as the money. 

You have also heard a good deal of testimony about the March 1 
Segretti letter sent out on Citizens for Muskie stationery accusing 
Senator Jackson and Senator Humphrey of sexual and drinking mis- 
conduct. A copy of this forged letter is attached as exhibit 244-22 
[previously entered as committee exhibit No. 206 and appears in Book 
10, p. 4280]. The calculated effect of that letter was to antagonize ad- 
mirers of Senators Humphrey and Jackson and I think fair-minded 
Floridians in general. We did seek to inform the press immediately 
that it was a fraud. Mr. Segretti has conceded he was responsible 
for it, and that it was a damnable malicious lie. But its circulation 
received wide coverage in the press, and, once again, our indignant 
denials never caught up with the lie — and were perhaps even doubted 
by some who heard them. 

I gather you also are aware of the early March advertisement 
placed by Mr. Segretti in a Florida newspaper implying that Senator 
Muskie supported Commimist Cuba. A copy of one such ad, and a 
translation, is attached as exhibit 244-23 [previously entered as com- 
mittee exhibit No. 207 and appears in Book 10, p. 1281]. 

There were also fraudulent radio and new^spaper ads put out in 
Miami on Spanish-language stations and in the Spanish language 
press — again allegedly by the Muskie campaign — purporting to have 
the Senator come out four-square for the Castro government. Others 
inferred that native-born Americans are more loyal than immigrants 
which was certainly not calculated to endear him to the Cuban- Amer- 
ican community. 

Some of the incidents that happened ; such as the pickets in front 
of the Manger Hotel in Tampa in January of 1972, did have an 
impact, both in undermining Muskie support among blacks and cre- 
ating further division among the candidates ; as you will see, I brought 
a batch of exhibits demonstrating that herein. Attached as exhibit No. 
244-24 is a memorandum from Chapin ordering the use of such signs 
at Muskie rallies. 

The signs were of a racial nature depicting Muskie as antiblack. 

The inference we gathered from these signs was that they came 
from Humphrey headquarters and frankly from my standpoint that 
made sense at the time because w^e knew Senator Humphrey had very 
strong support among the blacks and we also felt we were making 
inroads among his constituents. I loiow many other people in our 
ctffice in Tampa thought the incident was an inspiration of the Jack- 
son people, but it did go into the paper and it was particularly galling 
to me personally because it came shortly after I and others had had 
excellent meetings with black leaders in the Tampa area and had 
received pledges of support and this was just a day or two before 
the signs appeared. 

T^t me focus your attention on one activity which was of an unusual 
destructiveness. Upon two ■ occasions before the March 14 primary, 
when rallies were being held for Governor Wallace in Tampa and 
St. Petersburg, cards were placed on automobiles in a parking lot 
and distributed widely to hundreds of people stating on one side, "If 
you liked Hitler, you'll just love Wallace." On the other side, it read. 


"A vote for Wallace is a wasted vote, on March 14 cast your ballot for 
Senator Edmund Muskie." A copy of this card was sent to Senator 
Muskie and is attached as exhibit 244-25 [previously entered as com- 
mittee exhibit No. 214 and appears in Book 10, p. 4292]. These particu- 
lar cards caused a flurry of phone calls to me protesting essentially myj 
stupidity in authorizing their issuance. I would not want to describel 
before you some of the language that was used but you may have somel 
idea. We explicitly disavowed these cards and I told the office to talk' 
to the local papers in St. Petersburg and Tampa to assure them that 
we were not responsible for them. These disavowals, as I recall quite 
v.'ell and to my consternation, received little, if any. attention. I rec- 
ommended that we get in touch with the local headquarters of both 
Humphrey and Jackson to state our concern as to their possible cul- 
pability. Knowing the depth of support George Wallace enjoyedj 
in Florida, we continued to be concerned with the impact of this' 

T^st you assume, and I hope you do not, that my comments are 
totally partisan, I should bring up a matter which hounded us in at 
least New Hampshire and Florida and that is the scurrilous and 
totally unjustified attacks upon Senator Muskie by one Stewart Mott. 

Mr. Mott financed a project early in 1972 consisting of various 
printed documents, with hand-scrawled headlines written in red or 
black ink, and I have attached some of those copies of those delights to 
my statement as exhibit No. 244-26. To say they constituted bad taste 
would enable me to exaggerate for the rest of my life and come out 
even. It accused Muskie's father of being a draft dodger. It included 
blatant falsehoods about Muskie's record and it was sent throughout 
the primary States beginning in New Hampshire. Segments of the 
larger pamphlets wei'e run as full page newspaper ads which Mott 
financed. He even had the poor taste to send his diatribe to Mrs. Ste- 
phen Muskie, the Senator's daughter-in-law. There was similar out- 
rageous material dealing with disclosure of campaign finances which 
he mailed to Senator Muskie's contributors — contributors whose ad- 
dresses he was able to secure only because of the Senator's voluntary 
disclosure of his finances. 

I think it useless to refute each and everv allegation because I 
would be here an even longer time. This material answered me toward 
the staff of Senator McGovem, because it was our belief, it was my 
belief, that Mr. Mott was a heavv contributor to McGovern. There- 
fore, we assumed that this was either being done at the behest of Sen- 
ator McGovern or with his or their knowledge. As the campaign 
progressed, I called Frank MankieAvicz who swore he had nothing to 
do with this material. 

I should also note that the CREP dirty tricks department found 
much favor in Mr. Mott's sfame and picked u]) on it. A Mott newspaper 
ad berating Senator Muskie on the financial disclosure issue was re- 
printed and distributed to those enterino: a Los Angeles Muskie fund- 
raising affaii\ At the bottom of the reprint were typed the words : 

Tlie Committee will look for your names as part of Muskie's Fat Cats. They 
better be there. 

We drew the natural conclusion that Mr. INIott was responsible 1 
for this harassment, although we have since learned that this was a 


Segretti ploy. A copy of this handout, showing the additions of Mr. 
Segretti's agents, is attached as exhibit 244—27 [previously entered as 
committee exhibit No. 209 and appears in Book 10, p. 4284]. 


I would like to turn now to electronic surveillance. During the course 
of the primaries, an overriding issue was tliat of Vietnam. As you 
know, Senator Muskie had become convinced that the war had to be 
brought to a swift conclusion, but he was attacked for having altered 
his position on the war. I am not concerned with the responsible attacks 
on his change in position. What did become of concern were the con- 
sistent leaks that were coming out regarding positions which were 
being discussed within the staff and among advisers on the war issue. 
We were never able to understand how it was that there was so much 
conjecture in the press which seemed to relate to staff discussions on 
the issue of Vietnam. It is only now that some of it makes sense. I 
have learned that our chief foreign policy staffman in the campaign, 
Anthony Lake, who had once worked for Mr. Kissinger at the ^^liite 
House, had had his phone tapped. It was doubly disconcerting to learn 
that Morton Halperin, who was a former national security aide and 
was on our foreign policy task force, had had his phone tapped as 
well. Both men were under such electronic surveillance after they 
left the White House and were active in varying degrees with our 

The extent to which information thus obtained was used to muddy 
Senator Muskie's position on Vietnam is uncertain. But I can remem- 
ber discussing with the Senator the question of how it Avas that people 
seemed to know what he was going to say before he said it. We now 
know as a consequence of Mr. Halperin's civil suit that the FBI 
made available summaries of the taps to H. E. Haldeman. Exhibit No. 
244-28 contains copies of new stories concerning these taps. Only an 
examination of the fruits of these taps might disclose the extent to 
which information involving Senator Muskie was available, and/or 
used for political purposes by the White House. 

I would be remiss not to mention an incident which has long been 
known in our campaign as "funny phones." It occurred on November 9 
and 10, 1971, about the time the Senate Subcommittee on Air and 
Water Pollution, of which Senator Muskie is chairman, was com- 
pleting action on its bill. The key question was how the House would 
handle the bill. Would the House bill be as strong as the Senate 
bill which the White House vigorously oj^posed ? Would the House act 
in time enougli for the bill to be finished in 1971 so that a conference 
committee could meet prior to the time Senator Muskie might have to 
be campaigning in the primaries ? This is what happened. 

The phone in the subcommittee office would ring ; it would be picked 
up, but no one was there — only the sound of another phone ringing. 
Then someone would come on the phone, identify the office and say 
that he or she didn't call us. In a 2-hour period, some of the offices 
which answered and identified themselves were: The White House; the 
Vice President's office ; Senator Cooper, who was ranking Republican 
member of the Public Works Committee — several times; Congress- 




man Blatnik, Chairman of the House Public Works Committee; the 
Zambian Embassy, the Latvian Embassy, and the Embassy of 
Kuwait — plus others. 

Exhibit No. 2-14-29, which I have attached, contains two memos 
which M-ere prepared contemporaneously with the events. Leon Bill- 
ings, staiT director of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, 
after being alerted to the peculiar performance of the telephones 
in his office, had the telephone company into the office attempting to | 
ascertain what might have happened, what might have occurred. The 
telephone company answered that they were certain the re. had been 
no tampering with tlie phones and equally adamant that there was no 
way in which the incidents could have occurred. Mr. Billings has in 
formed me that at the time the speculation, in jest, was that the White 
House would go to any lengths to find out what Senator Muskie was 
doing. Mr. Billings' memorandum is in exhibit No. 244-30. But there is 
one certain fact. Immediately after the phone company came into the 
office and claimed not to have found anything, no further incident 

I hesitate to bore you with more incidents, ISIr. Chairman, but ] 
feel impelled to mention one more only because it reflected such gross 
insensitivity to the national interest and to the individual victims. 
We had been working for many months on the largest fundraising 
of the campaign in Washington on April 17, 1972, at the Washingtonj 
Hilton Hotel. We w^ere in dire financial need. I know you have already 
heard testimony from Mr. Segretti and his cohorts about the hundreds 
of pizzas and flowers w^hich they arranged to arrive collect at the^ 
dinner, and the anti-lNIuskie signs outside. But more important was 
one nationally destructive act. Mr. Segretti invited a number, perhaps 
a half dozen or more, Ambassadors from the African states with their 
wives, in formal attire, to the dinner. It had been my intention during 
the reception to spend my time introducing the Senator to a number 
of the significant contributors who had come from various parts of 
the country for this occasion. Instead, during the reception, I spent 
my time personally apologizing to each of the Ambassadors who had 
been invited and to their wives, seeking to make them comfortable 
and seeking to indicate that, while it had been a mistake, they were 
certainly welcome. It was an unsettling experience and I think showed 
no concern for the individuals embarrassed, to say nothing of LLS. 
foreign policy. 

I am now down to what I would like to have considered as my 


At the beginning of this long statement, for the length of which 1 
apologize, I said I did not want to have anything I say interpreter 
as a rationalization for our defeat. The primaries were hard fought 
and there were tough competitoi-s. Nonetheless, I find INIr. Buchanan'^ 
quoting Theodore "\"\Tiite's appraisal that the sabotage of forged letters 
and dirty tricks had the "weight of a feather" no more than a glib 
and self-serving conclusion, particularly since Theodore A^Hiite's bool? 
was written before these hearings got underway and prior to the 
testimony of Mr. Segi-etti, Mr. Benz, ]Mr. Hunt, and others. 

You, on this committee, will have to appraise the impact. I haven 
tried to give my view of that impact on our campaign. In my judg 


i 4667 

, ment, the unceasing events to unhorse Senator Muskie took a toll. 
They took a toll in the form of diverting our resources, changing our 
schedules, altering our political approaches, and being thrown on the 

They generated suspicion and animosity between the staffs of Demo- 
cratic contenders. Internally, and this is a matter of which I speak of 
very personal knowledge and deep feeling, they resulted in demoraliz- 
ing distrust, erroneous accusations by me of my own staff members 
for what I believed were their indiscretions and even their treachery, 
and I haven't had an opportunity to apologize to many of those on 
the staff who were so accused. If I might, just take a moment to let 
them know, I do apologize to them, I do so here and now. The sus- 
picions impeded a coordinated effort because, not knowing whom one 
could trust, fewer and fewer people were taken into the councils when 
it came to making decisions. These events certainly helped to under- 
mine the image of Senator Muskie by making him appear unable to 
adequately manage a^staff' which had been made, themselves, to appear 
as sievelike amateurs who couldn't keep a confidence. It also made 
liim appear as a man who at times would not hesitate to take unfair 
advantage of his opponents. 

Last, these events did not advance our ability to survive financially. 
Contributors raised questions with me about the loyalty of the staff 
and its apparent indiscretions and fumbling. No contributor wanted 
to see his money frittered away. So time and energy were consumed 
'lot only in securing funds to campaign, but also in explaining de- 
fensively our efforts to maintain security and efficiency. 

There is a momentum in politics, and when it is with you, nothing 
is wrong. As my secretary says when you are hot you are hot and 
wlien you are not you are not. And when you are not, the momentum 
begins to ebb, and everything goes wrong. If things were going wrong 
for perfectly legitimate political reasons, our problems were magni- 
fied by the efforts not of other Democrats but of members of the 
Republican Party who had no place in the Democratic primaries at 

I would point out that there is nothing in the resolution establish- 
ing your committee, Mr. Chairman, that says this conduct is repre- 
hensive only if it has decisive significance. It speaks rather of 
whether the object was "to disrupt, hinder, impede or sabotage" the 
campaign. I ask whether anyone here can doubt that this was the 
objectiA'e of the dirty tricks. If they were not successful, that's a 
comment on the ineptitude of the perpetrators, not their moral fiber. 
I am troubled by the moral viewpoint implicit in offering that line 
of reasoning as a defense. The doctrine that the end justifies the 
means is pernicious enough. The doctrine that the failure to attain 
the end justifies — or at least excuses — the means is terrifying. The 
means was best expressed in a memo of March 24, 1971, from Patrick 
Buchanan to the President wherein he stated: 

It is in our interest — and in the interest of the liberal Democratic challengers 
for the nomination — to prevent Mr. Muskie's uninterrupted march to the nomi- 

And he also said : 

There is a danger in going after Muskie, making him the martyr and spokes- 
man of the Democratic Party, and thus insuring his nomination and even en- 


hancing his chances of election. But the risk should be taken. If we don't do 
It now, we shall have to play hurry up football in the 2 months before election— 
and people tend to disbelieve political charges made in that kind of partisan 

Then he liad a very colorful sentence. 

Who should we get to poke the sharp stick into his cage to bring Muskie 
howling forth V More important, what kind of stick is more effective? 

Tliose were the words of Mr. Buchanan to the President on April 19 
1971. ^ 

A copy of one "sharp stick" for which Mr. Buchanan has admitted 
personal responsibility is attached as exhibit 24-1-31 [previously en- 
tered as committee exhibit No. 158 and appears in Book 10, p. 4055] 
When this document appeared, we— like Frank Mankiewicz— assume<l 
it to be the work of SteAvart Mott. 

The fact of the matter is that these disruptive activities continued 
to be directed against our campaign for months on end. If the insti- 
gatoi-s did not believe they were accomplishing their objective, it is 
difficult to understand why they persevered. They stopped only when 
they concluded that Senator Muskie was beaten. 

In a memorandum to John Mitchell and to H. R. Haldeman dated 
April 12, 1972, from Patrick Buchanan and Ken Khachigian, there is 
the following self-congratulatory note, which, if so much had not, 
been done to sustain it, I would have written off as no more than anl 
act of self-satisfied puffing. He said: 

Our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early' 
primaries, locking up the convention in April and uniting the Democratic Party i 
behind him for the fall, has been achieved. The likelihood— great three months, 
ago— that the Democratic Convention could become a dignified coronation 
ceremony for a centrist candidate who could lead a united party into the election 
IS now remote. 

I apologize for such a long statement. Mr. Chairman and members^ 

ot the committee, but I am now done. 

Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock, 
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 

at 2 p.m., the same day.] 


Afternoon Session, Wednesday, October 31, 1973 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

Counsel will interrogate the witness. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, for the minority today Mr. Michael 
Madigan of our staff will question after myself. ' 

Mr. Bernhard, that was a full and complete statement this morning] 
and I have very few questions. First, I would like to ask you, did yoii'i 
ascertain whether there was a pattern of questions aiid picketingi 
aimed at Senator Muskie in his different appearances tliroughout thei 
country? ' 

Mr. Bernhard. Well, there was. Commencing sometime late in thel 
fall of 1971, and continuing on through the Florida primary, there 
was a barrage of questions all involving a very few issues, abortion,! 
amnesty, marihuana, and gay liberation. We heard this place after 
place after place, and I would like to say, Mr. I^nzner, I do not object} 
people raising those questions, they are legitimate public issues. The 
problem was that they seemed to be planned, the people who were 


raising tliem seemed to have the capability of drowning out all others 
because their hands were always up or they were shouting, and they 
made communication on issues, those issues as well as other issues, 
most difficult. 

Mr. Lenzner. We now know that from interviewing Roger Greaves 
j,nd Mr. Segretti that funds from the Committee To Re-Elect were 
used to pay some of the pickets and people who asked those questions, 
ind I wonder if you could tell us whether, because of those questions 
md picketing, and other incidents, the campaign had to modify its 
strategy in terms of its public posture on either issues or the campaign 
iuring that period. 

Mr. Bernhard. We determined, Mr. Lenzner, very early in the cam- 
paign, and I think, based in part on Senator Muskie's performance in 
L9()8, that he had a unique capacity to handle hecklers and to display 
:he fact that he was prepared to listen to those with whom he disagreed 
3r who disagreed with him. We felt, therefore, that this seemed to be 
I year where people did not want to listen to long speeches. There 
ivas more a sense of participatory democracy, at least to the extent 
hat people wanted to be heard and they wanted someone to listen to 
md to I'espond to their grievances, not just what the person on the 
^t;ind happened to be saying. So we decided fairly early, it was part of 
lu* summer and early September strategy of 1971, that wherever pos- 
^il)le we would cut speeches to the bone, and I mean 5 or 10 minutes, 
ind leave the preponderant amount of time available for questions 
md ansAvers. We thought this was a good way to communicate. 

The fact, however, exemplified by the Whittier College experience 
md by some others, was that that seemed impossible to achieve. It was 
niI)ossible because Ave heard the same questions, people were not ask- 
ing about defense spending and they wei-e not asking about Vietnam. 
and they were not asking about problems of the responsiveness or un- 
•esponsiveness of Government. What they were doing was raising 
hese same four questions time and time again. So what we did do. 
and I am sorry to be so long in responding to your question. Ave did 
?hange that strategy and Ave decided Ave had better cut out these direct- 
confrontation kind of things Avith question-and-ansAver periods and 
reduce them to the absolute minimum, because they Avere not making 
it possible for the Senator to get his positions on the issues across. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I think you said before that in your OAvn analysis, 
which you said had been Xeroxed by unknoAvn persons in the head- 
quai'ters, that part of the theme of the campaign Avas to emphasize 
Senator ]\Iuskie's centrist position and Ave now also knoAv, of course, 
that Mr. Segretti Avas pui'suing etforts to raise questions on these other 
issues, and that some of Mr. Buchanan's memos reflected an interest 
in moving Senator Muskie aAvay from the centrist position. 

Did you make any effort to ascertain from the other Democratic 
headquartei's Avhether these pickets or questions had been planted by 
Dther Democratic candidates, or did you suspect that they Avere? 
[ Mr. Berxiiard. Well, as I said in my statement, I think Ave Avere 
'naiA'e about politics in a Presidential primary campaign, so Ave 
were aAvare that Ave were going to be hit with activities Avhich AA'Ould 
be harmful and Avhich — in our opinion — might not be ethical but 
there they Ave re. I Avill be very frank to say that I never assumed that 
Ave AA^ere being attacked by anybody other than our Democratic com- 


petitors and I must say quite frankly that the extent to which vre had 
the questions on abortion, on amnesty, on marihuana, on gay lib, foi 
reasons which you already heard and for reasons w^hich I assume you 
are already aware, we assumed that the preponderance of those were 
comino; from Senator ]McGovern and Senator McGovern's staff and 
it did not generate a warm feeling toward Senator McGovern or hi^ 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now, there has been testimony that a number of these 
busing posters were distributed thi'oughout the State of Florida, and 
that with this kind of literature and other kinds of literature that you 
testified about, was the question of the extent of the distribution oi 
literature a concern of yours? 

Mr. Berxhard. You are getting the heart of my greatest concern, 
\Vliat happened in Florida was that we knew about the ads in the Jew- 
ish newspaper. We knew about the ads that Senator Muskie was favor- 
ing the Castro government. We knew about the questions that were} ' 
being raised "Would you accept a black Vice President?" We knewl 
about the probusing posters. The problem that we did not know, the! 
problem that caused me all the concern, was how wide it was; howj 
much effort did we have to expend to counter it ? Where should we ex- 
pend that effort? Should we alter our media approach? Should we 
take out differing newspaper ads ? Should we have people trying to re-: 
spond to these positions? Should we try to issue news statements oni 
behalf of Senator Muskie and beyond all the rest ? It was the question :! 
Wliere was it started ? We were concerned to be perfectly blunt about; 
it. about the problems, for example, about what the Jewish vote* 
would be in southern Florida, where there is also a strong black vot^.j 
We were concerned; how widely were those matters distributed in that 
area ? For example, at one speech, where the Senator spoke to the stu- 
dents at the University of Miami, the only questions that I recall being 
asked time and time again is "Would you accept a Jewish Vice Presi- 
dent?" Well, that hurt. When I refer, in my statement, to that small 
scurvy little flier about the Warsaw ghetto, I did not know how wide- 
spread that was and I did not know what to do about it. "\^nien we saw 
the probusing posters, I got calls from Panama City, Tampa, from 
Jacksonville, and from Orlando about it. 

What do you do about it? How far were they and how many were 
there? I have heard testimony there were only a few, I did not know 
that and I had to go on the defensive to try to devise a new strategy 
which I hoped would clarify the Senator's position, because these 
Avere constituent elements we needed if we were to put together any 
kind of good showing, and let me say. Mr. Lenzner, we did not' 
believe we were going to win Florida but we hoped we would do 
better than fourth and I think some of these activities helped to 
establish us in the fourth position. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it you can expend a considerable amount of 
energy and resources just to ascertain how widespread such literature 
miffht be disseminated, and I take it also that you can expend a con-; 
siderable amount of the same kind of resources trving to catch up with 
the press-^if the press carries such — covers distribution of that litera- 
ture, and that means you are on the defensive and not on affirmatively 
for your campaign. Is that an accurate reflection of the effect? ' 


\ Mr. Berniiard. I think it is. The problem was we were thrown on the 

i defensive because of some of these matters that were raised and per- 

; formed by Mr. Segretti. 

As I say, I have said earlier before, I don't want to say we lost be- 
cause of all of these incidents ; I think they were exacerbating prob- 
lems. But we were faced in Florida with a critical problem, and the 
critical problem was one of financing. I had already cut our budget 
by 50 percent. Wlien I was called about the probusing posters I did 
contact our media people, both in New York and in Florida, to see 
whether we could get the money. Could we buy the time to try to 
clarify the Senator's position on this issue? Well now that was a 
diversion of our resources and it hurt because we didn't have the 
resources to divert. 

} Mr. Lenzner. Now, Mr. Bernhard, I would like to show you a letter 

^from an individual by the name of Mr. Ficker that we had some sum- 
mary testimony on this morning, and ask you if you can identify 
that document. Have you seen that before? That is a copy of the 

Mr. Berniiard. Well, "My Friend Ficker" as he called himself in 
Montgomery County when he was running, is someone I have never 
met and I don't really care to meet. This particular document was 
prevalent in the State of New Hampshire in the week or two before 
the primary. It was distributed, in fact, to our headquarters in ]Man- 
cliester, I saw it in Burlington when I was up there with the Sen- 
ator, and I saw it in Nashua and so I am quite familiar with the 

Mr. Lexzxer. It is headed "ITnitM Democrats for Kennedy" [pre- 
viously entered as committee exhibit No, 197 and appears in Book 10, 
p. 4:^66] and its intent is very clear, to obtain write-in votes for Senator 
K(Mmedy in the New Hampshire primary. 

Mr. Bernhard. Quite honestly when I saw this, and I knew Sen- 
ator Kennedy was not on the ballot ti.en, I thought it was a rather 
clever effort to divert support for Senator Muskie to Senator Mc- 
Govern, and I don't know what else I can say about it. It is unfor- 
tunate that the distribution was made. 

Mr. Lenzner. I think your last exhibit that you have appended 
to your testimony, exhibit No. 244-81, is a pamphlet we also have had 
l)rior testimony on. Citizens for a Liberal Alternative. That appar- 
ently, Avas drafted by Mr. Buchanan and others, distributed to Mr. 
Greaves, Mr. Segretti. Did you see that pamphlet in New Hampshire? 
]Mr. Berniiard. I saw more of that particular matter than I did 

■ of the Ficker distribution. That appeared in a number of different 
places in New Hampshire and my understanding was, not under- 
standing, firsthand knowledge, was that it was distributed in many 
cities throughout New Hampshire. 

Maybe to anticipate a question, it was our judgment, based on 
the nature of the pamphlet, that it was a IVIcGovern staff contribution 

I to trv to undermine us with the liberal support we were seeking, 
and I had not recalled that this was a specific matter that I communi- 
cated with Mr. ^Nlankiewicz about, but over the weekend trying to 

i refresh my recollection T did call Mr. Mankiewicz and I remembered 

. that I had, in fact, called him aliout this as well as the so-called 

i Harlem for Citizens black phone calls. 

4672 I 

]Mr. Lenzner. Were you aware, by the way, during that period I 
'of time tliat copies of that were phiced in Senator McGovern's ', 
headquarters in New Hampshire, by an em})loyee of the Committee To 1 
Re-Elect the President, apparent!}^ intending to make it appear that 1 
they were distributing it ? 

Mr. Berniiard. No. ; 

Mr. Lenzxer. We also have had testimony, and you have testified, j 
concerning the peo])le coming into Senator ]Muskie's headquarters j 
offices here in Washington. We liave had testimony about Mr. i 
Buckley, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Gregory, and we haye also had testi- I 
mony that you did not refer to — by some of ^Ir. Segretti's people, i 
that they had infiltrators in your Florida campaign. In fact we have i 
had testimony that one of your campaign fundraising dinners was { 
called otf because the infiltrator leaked out the information that it was 
going to take place. 

I would like to show you a document which is a memorandum from 
Mr. Magruder to Mr. Mitchell, Avhen he was Attorney Genei'al, dated 
January 31, 1972,* which appears to contain information taken fix)m 
the files of Senator Muskie's headquarters and also information from 
mail that was sent to Senator Muskie. 

Can you take the opportunity to look at that document? I think 
that shows on that first page, after the coyer memo, that the commit- 
tee liad obtained information that Senator Eagleton had invited 
Senator Muskie to a speech ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. Bernhard. That is cori*ect. 

Mr. Lexzner. And are thei-e not also indications of information 
concerning contributors of particular sums of money to Senator 
Muskie's campaign ? 

Mr. Bernhard. There are. 

Mr. Lenzner. The second page, I think, has that in more detail. 

Mr. Bernitard. Well, I see them. There are quite a number of them. 
I don't know all the people named in there as having been contributors. 
I can only say that maybe we will get into this a little later in re- 
sponse to some rpiestions Senator Baker had earlier. It does raise some 
problems in my mind, and explanations in my mind as to why some 
of these people were concerned about anonymity because I must say 
it comes somewhat as a surprise that, to find out names are being 
sent to the Attorney General. 

Mr. Lexzxer. You did testify that the information was being sent to, 
and we hare had other testimony to corroborate that, various news- 
paper ]-eporters and the Attorney General and others in the Commit- 
tee To Re-Elect. AVhat was the imi^act of apparent leaks of such 
information or dissemination of such information on your internal 
operations and on your staff organization ? 

Can you describe that in any detail ? 

Mr. Berxhard. Let me go back to one point and then maybe gen- 
eralize about it. You macle a statement about a fundraising dinner 
that Avas canceled in Tampa be(*ause of a leak that came out from 
the Tampa office about that dinnei'. It was frankly, it was a thousand- 
dollar-a-plate dinner. My judgment is that we would have gone ahead 
with that dinner had there not been a leak but I have to confess to you 
that we had hoped to have 20 people there and my recollection was 

♦Later entered as exhibit No. 246 in Book 12. 


only 9 appeared ready to show up for this at $1,000 apiece. I was 
afraid once it became known we were having a dinner that that might 
be an embarrassment to show a lack of support and so since it came 
out, we canceled that dinner. 

In terms of the general question you raise about the impact on the 
staff, I don't know really how to describe it. There is no question in 
my mind that as a result of these constant leaks of information, and 
I was accused of it. Ave began to run something in the nature of 
maybe of a police state for a while. We cut out general coordinative 
staff meetings. Let me try to be pi'ecise about it. I usually tried to have 
a meeting once a day and at a minimum once every other day to brief 
the people on the staff, media, reporting, so-called boilerroom in- 
telligence group. After everything started getting out and it was 
getting out at an ever-accelerating pace I just felt I couldn't take a 
chance on it. The result was that I began to tell people on the staff 
only what was indispensable for them to function. There w^as much 
resentment generated as a result of that because people felt they were 
being excluded. They were not in the confidence of the campaign. They 
spoke to me about it. I told them the reason why it was taking place. 

The result of it was a certain demoralization in terms of the staff 
activities. Why weren't they part of meetings^ Why didn't they go- 
in to see Senator Muskie when we were having final recommendations 
made ? And I must say that I found it disruptive and it was unpleasant, 
because I didn't like the idea of having to say to people who had osten- 
sibly committed themselves to Senator Muskie. "I don't know if I trust 
you'' ; and I called people in, I don't know how many times, depending 
on what the leak might have been or the story might have been, to talk 
to them about discretion, to talk to them about holding their counsel, 
about the dangers to the campaign, and finally taking steps to exclude 

It turns out that 99 percent of what I had done was wrongly directed, 
and these i)eoi)le denied what I had accused them of. I couldn't prove 
it. Due process didn't apply because there wasn't time to make it apply 
and I had to exclude them from these kinds of determinations and it 

Mr. Lexzner. You have also testified this morning, Mr. Bernhard, 
that the campaign spent approximately $18,000 for your Massachu- 
setts primary. I think your charts show^ that the Illinois primary, 
which at least Senator Muskie won, was a totally self-funding opera- 
tion. Our chart shows over $100,000 expended on the activities you 
have described earlier. Would you consider somewhat over $100,000 
a significant amount, if your goal is to affect the opposite party's 
primary operations in a campaign? 

Mv. Berxhard. I am not clear on what the $100,000 was that you 
are talking about. 

Mr. Lexzner. The $100,000 reflected the cumulative operations out- 
lined in the lower portion of the chart, except for the so-called Liddy 
operation, which cost $250,000, or at least, there has been some testi- 
mony to his receiving that amount. Do you think that the expenditure 
of over $100,000 is a significant amount, if your goal is to affect the 
outcome on these kinds of activities ? 

Mr. Berxhard. ^'ou know, if I had had $100,000, I do not think I 
would have used it that way, but it could have an enormous impact. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 


When I told you, when we were discussing this in executive session, 
we, in fact, literally spent $18,000 for the entire primary in Massa- 
chusetts and that includes money spent by people living in Massachu- 
setts. When I state we spent $20,000 in Pennsylvania, that is all the 
national put in, but Governor Shapp, who endorsed the Senator, was 
asked if he wanted us to campaign to raise all the money and we put 
not a penny from the national headquarters other than some staff help, 
into the State of Illinois. 

So if I had had $100,000, even in Massachusetts, where we were 
unable to buy media time which we wanted, I think I would have 
thought that was an effective expenditure. If I had had $100,000 on 
the other side to do us in, it would have been about four times what 
I had for a permanent fight. 

Mr. Lenzner. Having experienced these kinds of incidents, par- 
ticularly from your vantage point as campaign director, do you have 
any recommendations or suggestions to this committee in terms of 
possible legislation ? 

Mr. Bernhard. I tried to put some together, Mr. Lenzner. It is not 
easy for the committee to legislate in this area. In many I'espects, it is 
a matter of degree. I would recall that in the past election, the Fair 
Campaign Practices Committee stated that in nearly 20 years, it had 
uncovered, and I am quoting now, "no campaign tactics comparable 
in extent or potential damage to a free, self-governing society.'' So in 
a sense, maybe you are being asked to legislate or dictate political 
morality. And it is hard to draw those lines. 

It is always a matter of degree. But, Mr. Chairman, you may recall 
that when there was an argument made before the Su})reme Court and 
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was faced with the arguments that it 
was a matter of degree, he pointed out that the difference between 
civilization and barbarism is a matter of degree. I think that is the 
kind of problem you are confronting right now. 

I think there must be hard rules to limiting individuals' conduct dur- 
ing a campaign and there must be also sufficient flexibility for indi- 
viduals to follow the dictates of their consciences as they participate in 
the democratic ])rocess. In an ideal democracy, the exercise of indi- 
vidual conscience would be wholly determinative of an individual's 
course of conduct during a campaign. But as these hearings have amply 
demonstrated, while we strive for the ideal, we fall short. So we need 
to define some new guiding principles. 

I remember under some questioning from Senator Baker, we saw one 
young witness acknowledge that he had been willing to abdicate his 
own conscience even to the point of committing periury to help secure 
an election victory. AVe have seen others rationalize illesral conduct 
by proclaiming that the alternative to Mr. Nixon Avas unthinkable. 

We saw one witness assort that he was not even aware that it might 
be unlawful to steal confidential documents from one candidate and 
pass them on to the candidate's opponents. His rationale was that it 
was a political campaign and these things are done in a political 

So even though there were some who abdicated their consciences in 
1972, T think many and probably most had their consciences serve them 
in good cause. The challenge before the committee is to strike that kind 
of a balance })etween the need for rules and the necessity that there be 
flexibility. I know it is not easy. 


The logical starting place, and I will come to the specifics that I 
would recommend, is to focus on those areas where the existing law has 
been transgressed. Mr. Segretti and his operatives reported copious 
incidents of transgression. In dealing with the situations where indi- 
viduals have seen fit to ignore existing laws, the most concrete recom- 
mendation I can offer is to tighten the enforcement and penalty pro- 
visions of the law. I think it unconscionable that nothing was done as 
far as Mr. Segretti's letter on Senator Muskie's stationery regarding 
Senators Humphrey and Jackson. No action was taken for almost a 
year. But let me go beyond that and talk about some specific 

1. It nnist be made possible to investigate and punish campaign law 
violators quickly and effectively. To this end, I would recommend that 
there he established an indei:)endent campaign commission similar to 
that proposed in Senate bill ?)72, but with meaningful investigative and 
prosecutorial authority to prosecute more vigorously the existing laws 
and the laws which the Congress may pass. 

2. Existing penalties must be strengthened. I would recommend 
that some provision be made similar to those which authorize citizens 
to bring civil actions and receive $100 per day when their rights are 
violated by unauthorized electronic surveillance. In the absence of 
public financing contributors might be given a cause of action to 
receive liquidated damages when they have been defrauded of their 
money via proven illegal campaign practices. 

3. There is currently a Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. 612. which requires 
that campaign literature be signed. However, in the last election, 
we saw time and time again that the law was circumvented or ignored 
to such an extent that it was really meaningless. Now, the public, in 
my judgment, has the right to know the true source of campaign litera-- 
ture and I recommend more strenuous disclosure provisions, which 
would require the disclosure of the names of any individuals who 
helped either to compose and/or pay for such literature. 

4. I would recommend that the committee follow a precedent estab- 
lished by Mississippi law which requires that those disseminating 
political propaganda obtain the approval of the candidate for whom 
they composed the material or note on the document that such ap- 
proval was not obtained. This is the kind of thing that has been done 
in the Fair Campaign Reform Act of 1971 as far as financing is 
\?oncerned. I would extend that to political propaganda. 

Finally, I Avould extend the existing law relating to literature in 
18 F.S.C. 612 so that it would include some regulation of the use of 

Now, telephones require the opportunity and access to telephone 
lines and I do not see why we cannot have the same kind of rules 
apply so we do not have the Harlem for Muskie calls and the canvas- 
sers after midnight. Maybe it will not stop it altogether, but there 
should be a remedy and there is none at the present time. 

This brings me to the infiltration of campaigns and the purloining of 
confidential documents. We all know that breaking and entering and 
stealing of documents is already unlawful. There are other prac- 
tices, however, which are highly unethical and ought to be specifically 
spelled out in the law, and I would like to address a few comments 
to those. 


In the first place, it should be unlawful for an individual to serve 
on the payrolls of competing campaigns simultaneously and pass con- 
fidential information from one campaign to another. To prevent this 
practice, I would recommend that the committee suggest legislation 
to prohibit the joining of a campaign organization with the intent 
to either disrupt operations or to pass on confidential information 
by any individual and to prohibit the inducement of such conduct. 
In addition, there should be legislation similar to that which pro- 
tects trade secrets. The theft or unauthorized copying of campaign 
documents, campaign stationery, and other materials not available for 
public distribution should be expressly prohibited, cite United States 
V. Bottone, 365 F. 2d 389 ( Second Cir. 1966 ) . 

A final area is that of the misuse of government instrumentalities 
to thwart and undermine the campaign efforts of rival candidates. 
While I i-ecognize that the administration in power has a responsi- 
bility to defend its programs and positions, any misuse of govern- 
ment power should be prevented. One man's abuse of power may be 
another man's legitimate exercise of it. It is often difficult to draw 
clear boundaries between a valid user of these government organs, 
which incidentally undercut a political opponent, and the wrongful 
application of government authority strictly for the benefit of the 
party in power. 

I do not recommend that the committee undertake to render some 
abstract moral judgments in this difficult area. Rather, I would ask 
the committee to consider a plan w^iereby the public would be en- 
abled to render judgments in government activities as they occur. 
Somehow, the agencies of government must be compelled to disclose 
their actions so the public can formulate timely judgments on activi- 
ties such as the extended electronic surveillance of Morton Halperin 
and Anthony Lake while they worked for Senator Muskie. 

To this end, I recommend that the committee adopt a 2-pronged ap- 
proach, and I must say this is an approach not of mine but one offered 
by Senator Muskie during the campaign in 1971. I think it has great 

First, he proposed an amendment to the Freedom of Information 
Act of 1967 which would have created reforms within the regulatory 
agencies. Among the reforms were : 

{a) A prohibition against regulatory officials meeting alone with 
interested parties unless a public record is kept and disclosed. 

This w^ould have something to do with the willingness of those who 
are regulated, for example, to make financial contributions and have 
direct dealings with these agencies. 

(6) A requirement that all communications to an agency be avail- 
able to the public, with the exception of material like trade secrets 
and classified documents. 

And I have a recommendation on that in just a moment. 
{c) A requirement that closed files be reviewed periodically to 
remove and reveal data which does not warrant continued confiden- 

I might throw in and I am sure this committee is fully aware of the 
Florida sunshine law where public officials are not allowed to meet at 
all without the public having access. This does not go quite that far, 
but it is an attempt to give the public the opportunity to make an 
informal decision. 


The second recommendation I would make in the same regard is in 
dealing with matters requiring confidentiality — like national security 
documents. Senator Muskie proposed that an independent board be 
established to oversee and declassify information which is presently 
withheld from Congress and the public indefinitely. Under his proposal 
in the "Truth in Government Act of 1971," S. 2965, a seven-member 
board would be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. Once empaneled, it would declassify materi- 
als after 2 years, unless it was decided that they were too sensitive for 
declassification, in which case they might remain classified for up to 
12 years. Declassified material would be provided for public scrutiny. 
Moreover, the board would be required to provide Congress with what- 
ever materials were necessary for Congress to discharge fully and 
properly all its constitutional duties. This would apply even to 
classified documents. 

I make those two recommendations because they have the advantage 
of not calling for what I originally said was an abstract moral judg- 
ment by this committee but they would provide the deterrent of effec- 
tive public scrutiny in making information available regarding Gov- 
ernment action. 

]Mr. Lenzner, you asked me when we were talking if I had any 
recommendations for financing. I do. I will make them very short. 

In July of this year, you are aware, of course, that the Senate 
passed S. 372, a bill which I believe would substantially improve the 
existing system of financing Presidential elections. Unfortunately, 
it seems to be tied up in the House, and while it does represent prog- 
ress, in my judgment, it is essentially an interim solution. I believe 
there is great distaste for private financing of elections among politi- 
cians at large, among organized labor and obviously among the public, 
because I saw a Gallup poll recently which said 65 percent of the 
American people believe we should have public financing. But the 
problem is we have six major bills on public financing pending in the 
Congress. I tried to review those bills in preparation for this testi- 
mony. They are complicated, and they are so much at odds : some deal 
with primaries, some deal with general elections, some deal only with 
Presidential elections, some deal with congressional elections. I think 
my basic recommendation would be to find ways at this point to bring 
those various proposals into harmony, to find some way to subsidize 
general elections and maybe work out some matching system in the 
primaries with a requirement that a person demonstrate that he is a 
serious contender before he would receive any funds. Federal funds, 
to spend in a State. I think we have to limit contributions. I don't 
think the tax checkoff worked as well this past year as it might have 
because of the physical position in which it was placed. 

But the more difficult problem is to reconcile all these differences in 
the bills that are now pending in the Senate. I would recommend tliat 
the committee request some form of nonpartisan, bipartisan, organiza- 
tion, if there is one that you can find with a reputation for great ob- 
jectivity, to attempt to reconcile these existing proposals and formulate 
a model public financing statute, one which I would hope would be in 
effect bv the 1976 Presidential election. Because, you know, I think it 
would be a tragedy to have held these effective hearings that you have 
held, brought out what you have brought out, and end up with no 
reform in the area of campaign financing. 


Lastly, just to the question of primaries, I know there are a number 
of bills involvino: the primaries. They may be beyond the jurisdiction 
of this committee. 

I do not know whether we oupfht to have regjional primaries, national 
primaries; T do not have that wisdom. T do believe, and T have a hope 
that we will find some Avays that the States will end the concept of 
winner take all and <ro to pivino; people dele<rates and representation at 
the convention based on their percentaoe votes in the State, because 
this does a number of thinirs. It is really more democi-atic and it avoids 
the possibility of any one candidate havinir a superabundance of money 
and, therefore, jjarnerino: a disproportionate share of votes contrary 
to the public will. 

Those are the best I can do, Mr. Lenzner. 

Mr. Lkxznek. I appreciate those. 

I did not quite understand, when you were discussin<r what areas 
of activity miirht be prohibited, were you su.<r^estin<r the creation of 
specific criminal statutes as yon have described some etl'ective deterrent 
to such activities, or were you suofcrestinc: somethina; else ? 

Mr. Bernhard. I was sug;o;estin^ a combination of civil and criminal 
remedies. I think that the criminal remedy is a shot across the bow 
and may generate some trepidation and fear on the part of the activists 
who may be transsfressinc: the law. Civil remedies, however, would 
be another deterrent and that is to make people idealize that it may 
be cutting deep into their wallet if they violate the law. 

I do not know, I have no way of knoAving what the rule providing 
penalties on electronic surveillance, the liqnidated damage provision, 
ha5 done, whether it has been a deterrent. But I think and I can 
assure this committee that many of our contributors, when they began 
to hear what happened, were talking to me about was there not any 
kind of remedy available for recouping some of the money they had 
ali-eady contributed to the campaign? I made it clear there was not. 
So I am talking alx>ut a combination of both civil and criminal. 

Mr. Lexzxer. There is, as you have noted, section 612 of the U.S. 
Criminal Code, which is a misdemeanor. "Would yon also recommend 
that that and other statutes might be enacted into felonies? 

^Ir. Berntiard. I think something has to be done to bring people 
up short, make them aware that this is i-eally serious business. I think 
it Avas, in the concept of some of these people, a big joke, a big game, 
a Halloween prank, Avith a penaltA* so meager it was not a deterrent. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. Your testimony this morning reflected some consid- 
erable concern over the distribution of lit^'rature prepared and funded 
by ]Mr. ^fott. I belieA'e his name Avas on that. Hoav can this committee 
or the Congress deal Avith the situation where a pei^son, Avith resources 
of that natni-e, distributes literature that yon found, I think, un- 
acceptable ? 

Mr. Berx'hard. That is mild. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. That is a mild AvaA' of putting it. 

]\rr. Berx'iiard. That is A'en- difficult. The problem is we seem to be 
saddled — I don't mean it in an unfair Avay — with the SuUiran case 
Avhich makes it necessaiy that the ]>ublic officials invoh-ed proA-e malice 
before they can win a libel suit. But I am not at all sure Ave may not 
Avant to dcA'elop some kinds of provisions Avhich. in a campaign, would 
reinstitute the legitimate action for libel Avhen that kind of material 


is published. The only difference between Mr. Mott and some of the 
Segretti activities, as I tried to think about it, is that he surfaced, 
he pu.t his name on it. It was really the difference between maybe a 
gutterenipe and a pack of sewer rats. 

Mr. Lp:nzxer. The other question I liave is, do you recommend 
any legislation affecting the use of resources or fvuids l)y one political 
party to affect the outcome or influence the outcome of the opposite 

party's primaries? Or do you think that is encompassed in specific 

Mr. Bern HARD. Well, I don't know. Let me say what the problem 
is. We have to l^e realistic. We are a democracy. If I were the party 
in power, I would attempt to asseit to the best of my advantage all 
that I had accomplished and all that I might accomplish. I would have 
some reservations about telling the party in power, you cannot set up 
a truth squad to answer Senator Muskie, or you can't send the Cabinet 
out to speak in behalf of your programs, even in the course of a pri- 
mary. I think, though, when money is used for the kind of deceitful 
practices which are involved, I would prohibit that. I don't think 
there is any excuse for that. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I meant specifically the area of the kinds of testi- 
mony that we have had of sending infiltrators into the campaigns, of 
attempting to disrupt meetings or gatherings, or attempts to steal 
documents or mail. 

Mr. Berxhard. Well, I think it should be outlawed. I think if we 
are going to find a way to restore a semblance of confidence in the 
public affairs of this country, we are going to have to restore it by 
preventing deceitful and treacherous and fraudulent activities so the 
people can make a choice. My biggest problem with the 1972 and 1971 
period is that I think the American people were deprived a choice. 
I am not saying it is just because of these activities, but I am saying 
that they certainly contributed to it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Thank you, Mr. Bernhard. 
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Michael Madigan, w^ho is as- 
sistant minority counsel, will examine the witness next, with your 

Mr. Madigax". Thank you. 

Mr. Bernhard, if I might invite your attention for a moment to 
the chart that has been introduced into evidence before this commit- 
tee, with particular reference to the point on the chart which in- 
dicates that Senator Muskie's lowest point of popularity during the 
year 1971 was in September, 35 percent or so. and this was. according 
to the chart, well before anv of those dirty trick activities were directed 
against Senator Muskie. Would you not attribute this to the financing 
and structural organization problems that you experienced during 

Mr. Berxhard. I think they were a part of it. I think also that 
there was a natural decline from the November election eve speech of 
1970. We had anticipated a decline. There was no way that he could 
keep up the level of support that was generated right after that, and 
we had anticipated a decline. And frankly, during the period of the 
spring of 1971, we knew or believed we were the frontrunners and we 
thought that to come out even further would make us more vulnerable 
to attack from many more different groups of people. We were trying 
to run a quieter and less public campaign. So I think that was a major 


factor during the spring, and I think I have stated that publicly dur- 
ing the course of the campaign. 

Mr. Madigan. Do not your examples with regard to Massachusetts 
and Pennsylvania illustrate that the predominant problem of the 
Muskie cam])aign, -sVhich led to the Senator's withdrawal, was the lack 
of financing? 

Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Madigan, that was the culmination. We did 
have, and I have not tried to mask the fact that we had finance prob- 
lems all along. What finally led to the withdrawal from the primai-y 
was a combination of circumstances w^iich I tried to indicate in my 
earlier statement. I believe that by the time we had gotten to Massa- 
chusetts and Pennsylvania, we had been so cut up, in Mr. Buchanan's 
phrase, that we were bleeding and that it was difficult to get financing. 
And it is certainly true that subsequent to April 25, we didn't have 
any money to continue. 

Mr. Madtgan. In discussing the dirty tricks section of your state- 
ment, you indicated and criticized the systematic heckling, as you put 
it, which included at one point the throwing of eggs at Senator Muskie. 
You don't suggest, do you, that these heckling activities and this type 
of violent conduct occurred anywhere near as much in Senator 
Muskie's campaign as they did in the campaign of the President and 
the Vice President? 

Mr. Bernhard. I can't speak about what happened in the campaign 
of the President and the Vice President. I can only really testify as 
to what I perceived and what I know happened to us. 

Mr. Madigan. Did you have any knowledge of or could you tell us 
whether any State campaign headquarters of Senator Muskie was de- 
stroyed by arsonists? 

Mr. Bernhard. I don't know of any ; no. 

Mr. Madigan. Could you tell us whether Senator Muskie or his 
wife ever attended a dinner and Avere speaking when large masses of 
demonstrators attempted to storm the building? 

Mr. Bernhard. Oh, we had a few incidents where there was dis- 
ruption when both the Senator and his wife Avere at dinners. I can't 
speak to that with any precision, but I know that we had disruption, 
I assure you of that. 

Mr. Madigan. Now, you cite in your statement several examples of 
memorandums written by Mr. Buchanan and you apparently attempt 
to link those to the activities of some of the Segi-etti operatives. You 
know of no evidence, I take it, that Mr. Buchanan either kneAv of, 
approved of, or ordered any of these specific activities by Mr. Segretti 
and his operatives. 

Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Madigan, I am not sure about that. T under- 
stood that Mr. Buchanan did have some meetings with some people, 
Mr. Chapin and some others, sometime early in 1971. I don't know 
that. I can only go back to what I believe. That is that when you set 
the guidelines, you have set the policy for the kind of strategic you 
intend to follow. And I have alwavs believed that a person is pre- 
sumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts and 
that they are his own acts if they counsel or advise or authorize or 
encourage othere to perfomi those acts and if others perfonn them, 
not in the manner or not in the way they an.ticii:)ated. they still are 
a culpable party. I have no direct knowledge that Mr. Buchanan did 
any of these, other than he attended this meeting. 


Mr. Madigan. If you were at a strategy meeting in which you coun- 
seled that Senator Humplirey would be your main opponent," I assume 
that you would not think it would necessarily follow that a distribu- 
tion of a flier of a terrible nature ajjainst Senator Humphrey would 
haA^e been the result of any sort of direction from you at that meeting, 
would you? 

Mr. Bern HARD. It would depend on what I said. If I said, let's get 
Senator Humphrey, it is important that we undermine him, put a 
stick in his cage and have him come out howling in some way, and it 
was done in those tough terms and something occurred, I wouldn't 
say that I had no culpability or no responsibility for the agents, 
whether they did it in the manner that I had thought would be 

Mr. Madigan. With respect to Mr. Mott's activities, could you 
identify for the record the accountability project that Mr. Mott 
distributed ? 

I believe it is found in exhibit No. 244—26. 

Mr. Bern HARD. Yes. 

What would you like me to say about that ? 

Mr. Madigan. Well, just for the record, to identify exhibit No. 
244-26, it is the document you were speaking of when you spoke of 
Mr. Mott's distribution? 

Mr. Berniiard. It certainly is. 

Mr. Madigan. Do you know Mr. Stewart Mott and do you know 
whether he was a supporter of or large contributor to any particular 
Presidential campaign during 1972? 

Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Madigan, in my assumption, Mr. Mott had Ijeen 
a contributor to Senator McGovern. I made no bones about it that 
I had believed when this came out that this w\as being done by Mr. 
Mott being an agent for the McGovern staff and the McGovern orga- 
nization. I can't prove that is the case now. I don't know what Mr. 
Mott would say about that. 

I know that I have talked to Mr. Mankiewicz about it and he has 
vehemently denied that fact. And at this point I would have to ac- 
. cept his denial. 

Mr. Madigan. In your statement, you made references to an inci- 
dent occurring in Kennebunkport. Maine, involving a man named 
Lofton. Were you present at that gathering ? 

Mr. Bernhard. I was. 

Mr. Madigan. Your statement, as I understood it, accused Mr. 
Lofton of snooping at that gathering ? 

Mr. Bernhard. It certainly did say that. 

Mr. Madigan. Was that gathering held at a place called the Shaw- 
I mut Inn? 

Mr. Bernhard. It w^as. 

Mr. Madigan. And did your campaign people rent the entire prem- 
I ises of the Shawmut Inn ? 

Mr. Bernhard. If we didn't rent the entire premises and I don't 
I know the facts, I don't recall them, we rented darned near the whole 
; Shawmut Inn. It isn't that large and we had a lot of folks up there. 

Mr. Madigan. It is a public place, is it not? 
i Mr. Bernhard. It certainly is. 

:Mr. Madigan. With respect to :Mr. Lofton, did you have employees 
attending that meeting by the names of Michelow and Buxton ? 


Mr. Berxhard. I assume Mr. MicheloAv was there. I don't know Mr. 
Buxton. I don't know if he was there or not. 

Mr. Madigan. Were you aware of, and I notice it was not inchided in 
your statement, the physical assault of Mr. Lofton by some of your 
people, pushing him down the hall and trying to throw him out of the 
room ? 

Mr. Berxhard. That is one of the grand fictions of 1971. I Avas there 
during the whole time. Mr. Lofton attempted time and again to break 
into i)rivate meeting rooms, to have — to accost individuals as they 
came by the reception area, to demand their names, to demand their 
addresses and find out what businesses they were involved in. He be- 
came abusive, and we asked him to please depart. He would not depart 
from the meeting, and we tried to remove him from that. There was 
no physical violence beyond that. Mr. Lofton is a very good writer, 
he is very imaginative, and he, I think, referred to that meeting as 
some SS kind of operation against him, and I give him a lot of credit 
for imagination. 

Mr. MADirxAN^. Are you saying that it is not true that he was shoved 
down a public hallway at that meeting ? 

Mr. Berniiari). He was not shoved down a hallway, to the best of my 
knowledge. He Avas sure urged to get out of there to the extent that he 
was trying to interrogate our private guests. "We tried to prevent him 
from doing that and, I think it was legitimate. 

Let me say, Mr. Madigan, I still don't know what he was up there 
for, except that he tried to get a list of people to submit them to the 
White House to form the enemies list. I remember when Mr. Strachan 
testified as I looked at it, when he was asked about the enemies list, he 
said it had nothing to do with the enemies list, had nothing to do with 
anything except they wanted to upgrade the "V^HIiite House social list 
and wanted to exclude those people. 

Mr. Madigan. He was a writer to the extent that he was a writer for 
a Republican neAvspaper, was he not ? 

Mr. Berxhard. He certainly was. 

Mr. ]Madigax. Did you make any restrictions that the press would not 
be alloAved in ? 

Mr. Berxhard. Yes, it Avas a private meeting, no press. 

Mr. MADIGAx^ Did you exclude the press f i-om the meeting ? 

Mr. Berxhard. That is right. 

Mr. Madigax'. You mentioned the press conferences. Do you feel that 
a candidate for the Nation's highest office should be able to ansAver any 
and all questions that a person at a press conference might Avant to ask? 

Mr. Berx'hard. I do. 

Mr. Madigax'. I thought I understood vou to object to certain ques- 
tions that Avere asked at press conferences ? 

Mr. Berxhard. No. I only object AA'hen there is a pattern almost in 
the nature of a conspiratorial pattern Avhere there is such a droAvning 
out, such a reiteration of the ?ame question, that it prcA^ents communica- 
tion betAveen the candidate and the people at large. "\^niei-e those Avho 
want to ask questions Avhich go bevond amnesty and abortion and 
marihuana never have that opportunitA^ I recognize Ave are talking 
about a fine line and fine degree. But I think a candidate should be 
readv for anything. T think there is a ])roblem in a democracy AA-hen 
people are preclucled from really engaginir in communication. That 
is what I object to, and that is Avhat I objected to during the campaign. 


Mr. Madigax. I was a little unclear on }'our objection to the pickets. 

Did you object to the pei'sons carrying signs regarding taking a 
black Vice President or a Jewish Vice President? 

Mr. Bernhard. That is legitimate. But I think they should have 
been properly identified as to whom they were. I objected to the signs 
in front of the ]SIanger ]Motor Inn in Tampa because they gave the 
impression that that was Senator Humphrey or Senator Jackson. I 
objected to the ads that were taken in the paper because it looked like 
it was another competitor or nominee competitor. I think if you have 
pickets, you should identify the sources of those pickets. 

Mr. Madigan. You have no objection to the pickets, only the hiring 
of them by various people. 

Mr. Bernhard. I object to deceit and fraud in those pickets ; I object 
to people giving the appearance of being one thing and representing 
one candidate, and being someone else. 

Mr. ]Madigax. Xow, with respect to the 1972 Presidential election, 
and without in any way attempting to condone the activities that were 
perpetrated by ]Mr. Segretti and his operatives, do I understand your 
testimony before the committee to be that the victory which the Presi- 
dent achieved, 49 out of 50 States, Avas due to the fraud that was 
perpetrated by these dirty tricks? 

INIr. Berxhard. I can't make that statement, Mr. Madigan. I don't 
know wdiat w^ould have happened if we had had a different atmosphere 
in the primaries. The President had a great deal of support. There was 
a good deal of friction within the Democratic Party subsequent to the 
convention. I believed before and I believe now that the country would 
have seen a very different contest if Senator INIuskie had been the can- 
didate. But I don't want to sit here and say that but for these activi- 
ties, another man would have been President. I do think it had an im- 
pact upon the campaign, but I can't quantify it. 

Mr. Madigan. How Avould you compare the impact on the campaign 
of the dirty tricks versus your campaign decisions to enter a large 
number of primaries with inadequate financing and the financial dis- 
closure issue, those types of things ? 

Mr. Bernhard. At the time we made that decision, it seemed good. 
As I said, I think our appetites were excessive. We knew we were 
taking a high risk. We thought we could wi-ap it up in the first few 
primaries, and we thought that by winning the first few, it would 
create new sources of money and new momentum, and it would prob- 
ably reduce the ultimate expenditure of money because we wouldn't 
have to go through so many primaries. 

In hindsight, I can look back and say, I wish we had targeted a few 
primaries and done it that way. But we ran into these unexplainable 
problems in New Hampshire and in Florida very early. Our momen- 
tum was impeded. This affected our ability to raise funds, and it was 
obviously ultimately, looking back, a strategic mistake because it 
pinned so much on doing so well in the early primaries. 

Mr. Madigan. I take it, then, Mr. Bernhard, that you disagree with 
statements made by Senator Humphrey on the "Meet the Press" pro- 
gram on July 1 of this year, where he indicated that he didn't think 
they had a great deal of effect, and in fact thought that the dirtiest 
trick of the campaign was the one the Democrats played on themselves 
by their "crazy system of quotas and subquotas." 


Mr. Berniiard, I don't know the environment in Avhich the Senator 
made that statement. That was also a statement made prior to a lot 
of testimony that took place here. I do not think it is very easy for 
anybody to evaluate what the impact is until you have had a chance 
to absorb and analyze the testimony and evidence that had been ad- 
duced before this body. I don't want to disag^ree with Senator Hum- 
phrey. I don't think I am equipped to either disagree or agree with 

Mr. Madigan. I take it, then, that you are not going to disagree 
with Senator McGovern's statement on the weekly program, "Thirty 
Minutes With," where he indicated that he didn't think the dirty 
tricks influenced more than 100 votes one way or the other. 

Mr. Berniiard. I can understand him saying that. 

Mr. Madigax. Mr. Chaiiman, I have some questions with respect to 
financing, but I w^ould like to defer those for the second round, if I 

Senator Ervix. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Bernhard, one of the things that disturbs 
me about the last campaign was the inability of the particular candi- 
dates who were victimized by these dirtv tricks, to ascertain in suffi- 
cient time to expose the authors of these dirty tricks. "Wliat suggestions 
do y9u have by way of legislation to have someone within the frame- 
work of legislation set up to make an early investigation, on the spot, 
and reach a determination, and place the blame so that the people will 
know whether or not if somebody alien to the campaign was perpe- 
trating this fraud and deceit upon the American people? 

Mr. Bernhard. Senator Montoya, you are asking about the hardest 
question I think there is. I suggested this concept of an independent 
campaign commission may be expanding on the concepts of Senate 
bill 372, but how you set up a ])eremtory investigation without the 
opportunity for decision and review of those decisions, I don't know. 
This bedevils every effort at reform. It may be that you have got to 
accept the inability to do that prior to an election but provide penal- 
ties, including possibly the forfeiture of particular delegates in a 
State subsequent to the election, should that be proven. I don't know 
how to do that one. Senator Montoya. It is tough. 

Senator Moxtoya. Well, here is what I ha^e in mind : That many 
of these dirty tricks occurred, say, 2 oi' 3 days before an election 
or perhaps on the eve of an election, and there is no way to counter 
them, and you may have a stiff penalty in the law which prohibits 
these activities and that is not going to help the candidate. The candi- 
date might be defeated because of these diity tricks. 

Now, would you favor, and would you recommend, the establish- 
ment of, say. a national commission on truth with referees to make 
determinations on the spot at the different State and local levels, if 
those determinations are possible. 

Mr. Berxiiard. Well, if it could be done, and afforded due process 
protection so that ])eople are not maligned for things they didn't do, 
I would be in favor of that. I don't know that it can be done. Senator 
Montova. I wish it could. I do believe that the work of the Fair Cam- 
paign Practices Committee, as laudatory as it might be, has no in- 
vestigative power. It just publishes the facts it receives, and that 
doesn't do very much. 


Senator Montoya. We have no legislation, for instance, on copying 
of documents by an employee, we have no legislation with respect to 
deceptive ads or the use of spies by one campaign organization within 
the other campaign organization, we have no Federal law to cope with 
false literature except that we have a law luider our Federal structure 
to require the signature or to denote the sponsoi-ship of the particular 
literature which is circulated. But I don't think Ave have a Federal law 
dealing with the falsity of such literature, and we have no Federal 
law, and I doubt whether we have any State laws, I am not aware of 
any, dealing with distortions of stands on the part of candidates with 
respect to issues, and these are the things that deceive people and 
place a fraud on the voter, and these are — it is very essential to guar- 
antee to the American voter the integrity of the electoral process, 
otherwise they will be in a state of confusion and make a decision 
which is premised upon information, bad as it might be, deceptive as 
it might be, which they receive, and now Avhat do you have to say to 
counteract such possibilities ? 

Mr. Berniiard. "Well, as I tried to indicate. Senator Montoya, I 
believe there should be some changes in the law, changes in the 
restrictions on literature, political propaganda which is being put out. 
It may well be that we want to call a halt to some of the last minute- 
television and media advertising a number of clays before the final 
campaign where it always seems to get I'ougher, cruder, but I think 
the kind of things you have addressed yourself to are the kinds of 
things I hope this committee will make some recommendation on be- 
cause I don't think we should continue with fraud and deceit and I 
mentioned the telephones. I don't know how that can be clone but I 
think the telephones have become the new letter, the new literature, 
and I think that with the growth of, the acceleration of electronics, 
there has to be some way to prevent that misuse. 

Senator Montoya. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Bernhard, in your testimony this morning 
you referred to the so-called Canuck letter. Do you know anything 
about the origin of that ? 

Mr. Berxhard. No ; we have tried very hard. Senator Talmadge, to 
ascertain its origin. There has been much speculation in the papers and 
elsewhere. We don't know to this day how it started. T have no ques- 
tion but it is a total fraud, a total hoax. Senator Muskie never made 
the statements that were attributed to him. There were two letters, one 
letter in the name of Paul Morrison before the i^rimary and then sub- 
sequent to the convention some individual by the name of Eldredge 
wrote in a letter to the IVIanchester T'^nion Leader saying, "I must con- 
fess I cut down the tree, I really did it, and I was working for Mc- 
Govern." I think that was a hoax as well. 

Senator Talmadge. Did they have any grand jury investigation ? 

Mr. Berxhard. None that I know of. 

Senator Talmadge. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervix. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bernhard, I think you have made an extraordinarily useful 
and valuable witness for the committee's record. I think you have 
given us insight into a primary campaign of a major candidate for 



the Presidency. You have identified areas of difficulty, of concern, of 
frustrations, and disappointments. 

I mio:lit say parentlietically that you worked for a very fine man, a 
man for whom I had and still have a very great respect. I was per- 
sonally sorry, as distinguished, I suppose, from politically sorry, to 
see him badly bruised and battered in the Democratic primary cam- 
paigns. But iFor a variety of reasons, including the fact that I was a 
Republican fighting for'my life in a Democratic State in 1972, there 
was not much I could do except watch with growing alarm. You 
worked for a great man. 

I would like to wander a little more than we have so far. I would 
like to impose on your insights and experiences and good judgment to 
explore an aspect or two of the more fundamental concerns that I 
harbor about Presidential campaigns. 

Let me i-ecite a brief litany of my concerns. I have been told, for 
instance, that there are some upwards of 10 million people who may 
be engaged, in one way or the other, directly in Presidential cam- 
paigns in the course of an election year, block workers, precinct work- 
ers, campaign organizations and the like. Our proof so far indicates 
it was upwards of maybe as much as $100 million spent in combina- 
tion of the primaries and the general election in 1972. I believe I am 
right that there isn't another corporation, association or group in the 
Ignited States that would rival in size that 10 million, if that is right, 
dedicated to that particular endeavor let alone one put together in a 
matter of weeks, a staff in many cases by absolute strangers, responsi- 
ble by an organization chart and little else, if that, on occasion, re- 
sponsive to the requirements of the candidate and instruction of 
managers only marginally on occasion, I suspect; and then of course 
the terrible, awful voracious appetite for money this animal develops. 
It takes an awful lot to make that machine go, whether you are a 
Republican or Democrat and I for one wonder, Mr. Bernhard, whether 
or not Presidential campaigning is essentially unmanageable, as wo 
know it. 

I am wondering if we don't have to give some fundamental thought 
to how we set about selecting and electing a President. I wonder if 
we haven't so gotten into the business of selling Alka-Seltzer that 
we spend all our monev on appearances and not substance. I don't 
mean to malign Alka-Seltzer but the advertising campaign of a Madi- 
son Avenue approach is what T am tnnng to describe. 

I will get now to the point of asking you a question. If you had the 
opportunity, based on the experience you have had and the judgments 
vou obviously possess, do we structure the whole svstem of campaign- 
ing, of electoral reform, of the Presidential selection system, disre- 
garding for the moment the nuestion of requirements of changes in 
the statute law or even in the Constitution, would you care to cut your 
ropes and let your balloon soar and tell me how you would do that in 
the best interests of the Republic. 

Mr. Bernhard. It is a misfhtv big nuestion. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. I think it is asked from a mighty big witness and I 
would like to have his response. 

Mr. Bernhard. I have thought that — I will take a stab at it without 
great hope of success. 

We have to do something to reduce this incredible primary svstem. 
The Democratic candidate faces 24 to 26 primaries. We are not talk- 


ing about ignoring the Constitution now so I am aware of that. Every 
State has a different rule for the primaries. We went through a great 
legal problem for from (> weeks to 2 months trying to figure out how 
we qualified, what the impact of a particular primaiy would be, where 
the delegates were binding, whether we had a beauty contest, whether 
it was a discretionary primary, and when we got to the convention 
stage it wasn't just the results, every procedure in every State was 
different, and I can assure you we made mistakes and got confused in 
some of those from a legal standpoint. 

Some way, we have to find a way, whether the party should do it, 
whether the Congress ought to recommend some procedure to do it, 
we have got to reform the primary system. 

My problem is when people say let's have regional primaries, let's 
have a national primary, the problem I see with a national primary is 
that you could have one convulsive national event which could deter- 
mine the outcome of that primary and have nothing to do with the 
concept of electing the best man to be President. In the regional pri- 
maries there would be the ciuestion of what order to follow. I thought 
maybe you could have some segments of regional primaries where the 
winner of each regional primary could finally contest for the ball game. 
But the one thing I am certain, if we keep going the way we are going 
now they will become more and more expensive. My recollection was. 
Senator Baker, that in 1952, in all the Federal elections, including 
Presidential, $150 million was spent. In 1972, including the congres- 
sional, Senate, and Presidential elections it was close to $400 million. 
It will get worse. 

So I think we have to improve on this by shortening the i)eriod of 
time for campaigning. I know there are some bills pending right now 
that would do that. I would like to see that done. But, in the long haul, 
you get down to that very knotty problem of who is paying for it all. 
Maybe you eliminate a number of people who aren't far enough ad- 
vanced to raise enough money to even compete in the primaries. I 
would hope we haven't gotten to the point where people like Senator 
]Muskie, who really is not a man of means, are excluded. It would be 
tragic if a pereon like that were excluded from the jjrocess but I think 
it is very unfair for him not being from a big State. 

Senator Baker. Would you say once again, parenthetically, that 
money is maybe the biggest single problem in the campaign ? 

Mr. Berxiiard. If you had enough money, I could organize in 200 

Senator Baker. May I just say there is all the difference in the world 
between not enough money and enough money, and no difference at all 
between enough money and all the money in the world. 

Mr. Bernhard. I can assure you. Senator, that we could have done 
a very different job in many different States if we had the money. Sure, 
money is vital. The question is how much is the country prepared to 
expend? When we talk about Federal financing, I think it has been 
estimated that will cost each taxpayer $1 or $2. Maybe it deprives some 
people of their convictions to be able to give money by doing it in that 
way, having an exclusive Federal financing system but it seems a very- 
trifling amount of $1 or $2 to assure that there will be no corruption 
in a campaign and to enable people to comjiete on the merits rather 
than sending them to campaign with one hand tied behind their back. 


So, I think money is a very vital issue. That is why I just pray that 
this committee will come up with some recommendation of how to 
handle the financial aspect of this campaig:n. 

Senator Baker. Do you affree there is just as much a contest to find 
out who a man is, as well as what he is, in a Presidential campaioji, and 
name recoijnition is sometimes more important than convictions and 
issues in the campaign. 

Mr. Berniiard. Absolutely correct. 

Senator Baker. Any suggestions of how we can change that? I sup- 
pose reducing the amount of money you can spend on spot announce- 
ments or on television or advertising might have something to do 
with it. 

Mr. Bernhard. No ; I W' ould not be unhappy if the committee were to 
arch its back and iust sav. "Let's end these 1 -minute television spots.'' 
I think they are inherently deceptive. 

Senator Baker. On the other hand, let's take the situation of an in- 
cumbent President and a challenger. Maybe a challenger in some fu- 
ture system that has not had public exposure and name recognition that i 
primaries give to him in the national campaigning, the political circus 
jjrings to him. What a problem he would have in trying to gain recog- 
nition, to try to let the people, in fact, know who he was before they 
found out what he was. So, I wonder about that, too. 

I wonder how you balance the advantages of an incumbency. 
Mr. Bernhard. Well, there has been a problem, as you know. Senator ; 
Baker, trying to establish the concept of the loyal opposition. When the 
President speaks, those who would disagree with his policy, the in- 
stitution of the Congress, should be enabled to respond. The television 
networks are not entirely favorable to that proposal. I think we have 
got to find a way during a delimited period of time to have television 
made available, maybe without, maybe with public financing or maybe 
with no financing. 

Senator Baker. What about our friends over here from the writing 
press, I suppose they would argue that they affect as much opinion in 
the United States as the electronic media. There is no wav on earth I 
know of to have a corresponding balance with the writing press, is 
there ? 

Mr. Bernhard. I don't know how to do that. 

Senator Baker. I don't either, unless you elect the press, you might 
do that, but I doubt that. 

Mr. Bernhard. Xone of them would get in office. [Laughter.] 
Senator Baker. What about the business of selecting a Vice Presi- 
dent ? Do you have anv suggestions on how we might improve on that 
techniaue? Senator Griffin. I understand, proposes that we might pos- 
sibly dispense with the popular election of the Vice President in tan- 
dem with the President and let the 25th amendment come into opera- 
tion there after the selection of the President. Other suggestions have 
been made that a candidate, to qualify to run in a Presidential primary, 
would have to declare a list of names from which he would propose to 
select a running mate so at least some minimal accounting of that likely 
choice could be taken by the country. None of these really appeal to 
me but the present system doesn't, either. Do you have any suggestions 
in that respect ? 

Mr. Bernhard. Senator Baker, I am just not omniscient. 


Senator Baker. I am not omniscient either, I was looking for some- 
1 body else. 

Mr. Berniiard. I don't think I really have an answer for you on that. 
. I do feel that whoever is Vice President must be able to work in har- 
j mony with the man the people elect. 

Senator Baker. We tried it once, you know, let the first man be 
President and the runner-up be Vice President and we had dueling 
a lot. 

Mr. Berniiard. I think the one single clean problem is we don't 
seem to spend enough time in the search and investigation of the 
qualifications of thiit man who the President feels is qualified to run 
with him and one with whom he can work. Maybe there is some 
kind of procedure we can set up for that. Maybe if you get four or 
five different people whom you carefully investigate before you get 
to a convention, but I am not sure we can resolve the problems by 
changing all the systems of the country at one time. 

Senator Baker. I am not either but I am sure that my balloon 
is loose from its moorings to the point where I am going to let my 
imagination soar. I want to think about it. I think I will probably 
end up at a nuich lower altitude than I am suggesting to you now. 
But vou know I really get the feeling sometimes that political cam- 
paigning in the United States, whether it is for the Senate or for 
the Presidency, is more like college politics than it is like the real 
fundamental issue-oriented crucially important business of selecting 
the Chief Magistrate of the United States. I think Madison Avenue 
has captured us so thoroughly that we are dealing with fluff' instead 
of substance and fluff costs a lot of money and takes a lot of people 
and creates a lot of distortions. 

Mr. Berxiiard. Senator Baker, I said in my statement, I really do 
not know how I can convey this with any greater sincerity, the 
money issue is so real, and it is not just because we ran out of money. 
It was the time that was spent in trying to use the Senator's presence 
to secure money, dragging him from dinner to dinner, reception to 
reception, here is another contributor, interfering with his Senate 
schedule, this was incessant, and I assure you he did not find it one 
of the most desirable occupations that he had run across in his 25 
j^ears in public life. It was endless. 

I remember Senator Harold Hughes when he dropped out just 
said, "I can't stand raising money," and I think darned near everybody 
who is in it has the same feeling. So that is the reason I would 
like to see candidates removed from having to find ways to stay 
alive or to compete. 

Senator Baker. All right. I want to talk about two more things 
and I will relinquish my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The first one is how, if we went to public financing, we could 
protect against guidelines of bureaucratic rules and regulations, and 
the second one is this question of full disclosure versus the right to 
anonymity. I know Senator ^luskie disclosed all of his contributors, 
I believe 'that is correct, including his pie- April 7 except for the 
anonymous requests. 

Mr. Berxhard. Except for a period from January 31 to April 7, 
when we were busy with other things and we never did disclose them, 
but the books had been made available. 

21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 


Senator Baker. Very good. I did the same thing and I know 
from fii-sthand experience a lot of people were genuinely angry at 
me for disclosing those names. I did it frankly, because I was on 
the committee and I just wanted to get that out of the way since 
I was the only one on the committee who ran in 1972, and we turned 
up a few — I am not going to tell who — I see my Tennessee press is 
already scrutinizing me — but we turned up a few, who had con- 
tributed to both sides, you know, and that did not set very well. 

Mr. Bernard. We turned up quite a few. 

Senator Baker. And we found a few others w^ho just were upset 
about it, a few who claimed they were entitled to anonymity. 

Senator Ervin. I would just say, like a man on his death bed and 
the priest told him, "You have a short time in this world, so you 
had better renounce the devil and all his works," and he said, "No, 
I am not going to do a thing like that because I do not know w^hose 
hands I am going to fall into." [Laughter.] 

Senator Baker. I am in no position to make — OK, let us talk about 
that for a minute. That has to do with private financing of campaigns 
and Avhether, in fact, there is a valid basis for requesting anonymity. 
This has come up before in the committee and I will not try to lead you 
into an answer. Do you care to elaborate on that any further? There 
would not be a problem for us to get public financing but I want to 
talk about a few problems there in just a second. 

]Mr. Bernhard. Of course, right there it is not just a problem with 
the Campaign Reform Act. 

Senator Baker. Since we passed that period of adolescence. 

Mr. Bernhard. It is a very hard question. You know the implica- 
tion in that is that people who contribute anonymously are con- 
tributing dirty money, money from the corporations or unions, banks, 
they are dealing in cash. Cash as a legal tender is no longer acceptable 
in terms of the public mind. At the same time you have got this prob- 
lem that I tried to address myself to. Some people have internal family 
reasons why they do not want to contribute openly. Others, as I indi- 
cated quite explicitly, did not want to contribute publicly because 
there had been a kidnaping of the son of one of our contributors 
in California; the fear of the administration in power retaliation and 
all the rest of them. The problem that I am worried about is if you 
retain private financing there are many, many people who simply will 
not contribute, and I can say this with as much conviction as I can say 
anything, that the estimates of what we lost, after we disclosed before 
the Florida primary, run from a decline of a half million to a million 
dollars that we had anticipated that we might receive. 

Senator Baker. Because you disclosed ? 

Mr. Berxhard. Because we said that we would then be forced to dis- 
close. We were told by people — I know that we attended a dinner, I 
know we talked to Senator Muskie, I can tell you that I was on the 
phone in tlie Americana Hotel in ]\Iiami Beach for 3 days calling con- 
tributors, those who had made pledges or commitments and those who 
had made contributions, to say this was a decision that had been made 
and it Avould have to be followed. It cost us dearly. 

Now I am saying it should not. I do not want to get into the ethics 
of whether one thing is better than another but if you are going to 
keep private financing I think you are going to find that come 1976 a 


, very significant number of people simply are not going to participate 
,; financially in these campaigns. They are concerned, they are concerned 
\ about retaliation. I must say that the result of the facts that have been 
adduced in this hearing would sure make me very concerned to become 
a well-known, high rolling contributor to a Democratic opponent of 
the administration in po^^■er. So 1 am not prepared to say that the 
whole concept of anonymit}' is bad. You would like it done away with 
but 1 think short of public financing it will decrease the amount of 
money available for the opposition party and particularly for the 
lesser-known candidates. 

Senator Baker. Especially in the case of a challenger against an 
Mr. Bernhard. I think that is a valid observation. 
Senator Baker. I have a lot of other questions in that respect, but 
I will i)ass them now and go to the other question and that is, I have 
always instinctively had a suspicion of public financing. I have never 
, quite trusted it, mostly for the reasons I just told you. I think it is 
such a delicate part of a democratic system that I sort of hate for 
the engine of government itself to dictate methods itself, and finance 
techniques by which its own officers are selected. 

This may be too high a philosophical value, but it does bother me. 

And I am woi'ried about a great many things, such as how we have 

' an impartial administration, of the fact how we make realistic or 

\' diminish the advantages of incumbency, how we permit people to 

i; become valid challengers, how we guard the rights of those who 

do not w^ant anything to do Avith either candidate, and there is a 

: great body of those on occasion, I ani told, even sometimes that the 

majority of people vote against someone instead of for someone. 

I variously believe that or not, depending on whether I was running 

against someone or for i-eelection. Do you care to give me any further 

insiglit into how you think public financing will work and what the 

I dangers are? 

Mr. Berniiard. I tried to take a look at the six or seven bills which 

are ponding in the Senate, and you know, I would like to say if we 

were going to have public financing it should apply to Presidential 

' as well as congressional. Senatorial elections, everybody ought to be 

' in the same bag. I think I would be inclined at this point to focus 

; my attention on tlie Presidential campaigns because of then- extremely 

heavy costs. My inclination would be to have some kind of a matching 

I grant program for the primaries where a contender in those primaries 

I would have to show some substantial support. 

Senator Baker. Two questions. One, the matching grant only in 
I the primaries and not the general election. 
Mr. Bernitard. I think that is right. 

Senator Baker. Is that a legalism to avoid the constitutional 
Mr. Bernhard. No. 

Senator Baker. Or a statement of policy? 

]\fr. Bernhard. Xo, a statement of policy. I am not sure there is a 
constitutional problem there. T presume you^are talking about the right 
to free exercise of your convictions. I am concerned really, about the 
thought that people ought to trv to generate some support in the pri- 
mary to show they are viable candidates and maybe the ability to raise 



some money as an indication there is a passion toward a particular 
candidate, although I would not do it on a dollar-for-dollar basis. I 
think I would do it on a different basis three, four, five to one. I would 
put limitations on what any individual could contribute privately even 
in the primaries. But I would go from there, I believe, that once you 
had selected candidates in the conventions of the respective parties, I 
think I would go at this point at least at present with full Federal 

Senator Baker. All right. That is, I think, as far as I would care 
to go. I would throw out two or three other thoughts and not even ask 
you to respond, but just so you have them in your mind, in case you 
want to speak of them at another time or we have a chance to discuss 
it another time. 

I think we ought to give some thought to electoral as well as cam- 
paign reform. I think we ought to give some thought to democratizinfr 
the party system. And what occurs to me is the election of delegates to 
conventions by popular vote. I think as you say, the primary system 
should be rationalized. Your friend and my friend. Senator Muskie. 
remarked, and I am sure he will not think it a violation of confidence, 
during the primary campaigns of 1972, he said, "You know, we have 
to find a way out of this business of having an election every Satur- 
day," and it is true. It grinds up good men. I think that there are a 
number of other things we have to do but, as you say, we are not 
omniscient and we just have to do the best we can with it. And I thank 
you for your thoughts. 

Mr. Bernhard. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. I have misgivings about public financing of cam- 
paigns. In the first place, I do not know how you are going to decide 
who is going to get the campaign funds from the public. I cannot 
figure it on any fair, rational basis by which you can determine 
which of the candidates should receive public financing, because we 
have a lot of people running for office. We used to have one in my 
State every 2 years who would file for either U.S. Senate or Governor 
and got his name printed on 3 or 4 million ballots and after he filed, 
that is all he did, and somebody asked him why he filed every 2 years 
for major office, he said, "Because I raise and sell pigs and I cannot 
get — I can file for a very small amount of money, I get more advertis- 
ing for my pigs with that amount of money than any other way." 

And he said, "People asked who was that fool running for Gov- 
ernor or U.S. Senator," and he said, "They get curious and they come 
to see what kind of a fellow I am and look at my pigs and buy some 
of my pigs." [Laughter.] 

Should a fellow like that get public financing, since he is willing to 
spend his money like that for advertising purposes. I cannot find any 
rational criteria by which we can determine who should be the recipi- 
ent of Government financing and who is to make that determination. 

Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Chairman, that has been the hard problem, I 
guess, all along. It was the problem in Senator Long's original bill 
that he tried to meet. A\niat do you do, for example, for a third-party 
candidate, what kind of formula? And he did recommend a specific 
formula and tried to do that. 

Senator ER^^N. But the third party would get his funding after 
he lost the race, instead of in advance, and wouldn't be able to get it. 


, Frankly, I think the political parties and candidates have failed to 

[ work the field that is open to them on the provision of the Internal 

I Revenue Code, which allows each person to make a contribution of 

' $50 to the candidate or party of his choice, and to take a $25 tax credit 

against his taxes or a $50 deduction from his gross income, whichever 

is the most advantageous to him, and I think that, by the use of that 

statute, that major parties and major candidates could finance their 


j Mr. Berxiiard. AVell, maybe, Mr. Chairman, I just know that at 

least — you are right, the past year has not been exemplary in terms 

I of returns based on either tax checkoff or the deduction. People just 

: haven't really responded. It may have been because of the physical 

location or the newness of it but it hasn't been enough, and I gather 

it has been rather dismal. 

Senator Er\tn. I don't believe they worked the field very well. 
Because they go after the big contributors. 
Mr. Berxhard. Sure. 

Senator Ervix. Because they get more in. We had a very great man 
in North Carolina named Judge — a member of our State supreme 
court — Willis J. Brogden, in Durham, and had a strong desire along 
about 1980 to run for the T^.S. Senate. Well, he didn't enter the race 
and I thought he would have won it easily. I saw him a short time 
thereafter and told him, I said, "Judge, if you had just entered the 
race, you would have been nominated for the Senate." 

He said, '"Well, I am used to people having a mortgage on their 
property but I wasn't able to finance a campaign and I am not used 
to people having a mortgage on me." 

And I think tliat deters a lot of men from entering politics, and 
the pi'ivate financing — the trouble with it is so many people make 
contributions that they think they are paying in advance for favors 
they are going to receive from their party if it wins. And I think we 
have hardly scratched the surface on this question of financing, because 
I have often thought any industry or any individual that is in trou- 
ble with the Government Agency — it ought to be a crime for him to 
make a contribution and it ought to be a crime for anybody to solicit 
a contribution from him or accept it, and I have thought the same 
thing about the pressure that is brought on industries to make con- 
tributions to the Government, when they are largely dependent upon 
the activities of Government for their prosperity. 

That is a species of moral coercion to make campaign contributions 
and I think some of the questions Senator Baker asked you, and 
some I suggest, are calling on you to unscrew the inscrutable. 
Mr. Berxhard. That is how I felt. 

Senator Ervix. Xow. I will agree with you in your appraisal, vou 
say that you cannot — you are unable to — find any yardstick by which 
you can measure to your own satisfaction, the result of some of the 
efforts of sabotage of campaigns and some of the so-called dirty tricks; 
liow much effect they had in the number of votes that were influenced 
by them. But can vou tell me what effect you think campaign tactics in 
the 1972 Presidential election had on the confidence of the American 
poonle in their Government ? 

Mr. Berxhard. Mr. Chairman, I think that 1972 was a disaster. 
I think that the respect which now exists for public elected officials is 


at a nadir. I think people don't care about voting. Even before the 
disclosures that have taken place here, my recollection was that some 
62 million people didn't vote in 1972. People are turning away from 
Government. Before we were worried about whether the bureaucracy 
was responsive to Government's needs, whether we were being over- 
whelmed by big government and too much concentration in Washing- 
ton, D.C. and so on, now it is much broader than that. 

Now, it goes right to whether you are going to trust a single person 
you elect to office. "Am I going to believe a single word that you say 
to me? Am I going to believe any advertising that is put out by you? 
Am I going to believe you are serving my interests at all?" 

I think it is engulfing the country right now and that is why I frank- 
ly believe that wTiat this committee does is much rnore vital than even 
you may think, because people are going to be looking here and saying, 
"Is this committee going to recommend the kind of reforms, based 
on all that it has heard, that wnll make a difference, to restore some 
credibility ?" I don't say that in any trite way, I mean real credibility. 

Wlio are you going to believe any more ? That is the real problem, 
and if it doesn't come from this committee, I don't know w^here it is 
coming from. 

Mr. Chairman, let me, as I was trying to get this ready, I ran across 
something which I would just like to read to you and I really believe 
it is applicable to the committee. It was an epitaph which was found 
on a church near London and it said, "In the year 1653 when all things 
sacred in the kingdom w^ere either profaned or demolished, this church 
w^as built by Sir Richard Shirlye, baronet, whose singular place it was 
to do the best things in the worst of times." 

And I think that is what the country is looking for to this committee 
right now. 

Senator Ervin. Now, we have uncontradicted evidence here that Mr. 
Segretti was employed by Mr. Dwight L. Chapin, appointment secre- 
tary in the "VYhite House, that he was paid by Mr. Kalmbach, out of 
money which American citizens had contributed to advance the polit- 
ical fortunes of the President, and we have had evidence here and it is 
admitted, uncontradicted, that in the Florida primary that Mr. Se- 
gretti, in effect, had scurrilous charges, what I call forged, on a fac- 
simile of the letterhead of Senator Muskie, and circulated scurrilous 
charges against Senator Humphrey and Senator Jackson, which are 
too foul for me to repeat here, and then, when we had the Department , 
of Justice or the FBI investigating this matter, the Department of 
Justice reputedly, according to the press, stopped the investigation on 
the ijround that sabotage operations of this character were not against 
the law. 

Now, what effect do you think that had in confidence of the people 
in the Department of Justice ? 

Mr. Bernhard. I would think that they would have the sense that 
the charge given to them to carry out justice was being undermined, 
that if there was no desire to try to brino; to the bar the people who 
were engaged in essentially felonious conduct, where was the even hand 
of justice? And had not the Department and the FBI become, instead 
of an independent judicial arm. a political arm of the administration 
in power ? I think to me one of the thinars that has been the most trouble- 
some in the last year or year and a half is this fear of the politication of 


the Department of Justice and other agencies which have other charges 
i and other commitments tliat are being: misused. 

Senator Ervix. I have been informed by Senator Jackson that when 
these charg,es were made, I think about October in 1972, he called it 
to the attention of the office of the U.S. district attorney in Florida, 
called it to the attention of the Depai-tment of Justice, and notwith- 
standing those facts, said no indictment was I'eturned in connection 
with the matters until about the last of April of this year. 

Don't you think that when crimes are committed wdiich go toward — 
attack the very integrity of the electoral process, tliat justice ought to 
be swift, instead of treading on leaden feet like that? 

]Mr. Bernhaiu). Of course, Mr. Chairman, and if it is not, where is 
the integrity of the law and why should people respect it. 

You talk about the need for law and order. That means law and 
order for everybody, and it means an awareness of law and order, of 
transgressions of the law on the part of anybody and T think it may be 
trite, the old talk of justice delayed is justice denied, there is just no 
law at all. 

Senator Ervix. I am not concerned in this hearing about how many 
votes weie influenced by these tactics, but as an American, I am greatly 
concerned about the effect these tactics have had, not only on the integ- 
rity of the electoral pi'ocess, it may not involve that too much instead 
of the integrity, not the quantitative vote on America but what it 
has done to the contidence of the American people, I think that is 

Mr. Berxhard. I agree with you. 

Senator Ervix. Because we have got the greatest country' on earth, 
we have got the greatest system of government on earth. And it is not 
the defects in the system so much as it is the defects of some human 
beings who are entrusted with political powere that have brought us 
to this very tragic hour. 

I want to commend your statement. I think it was a fairly restrained 
statement and I think it made a very significant contribution to the 
iuATstigations this committee has been attempting to carrv^ on. 

Mr. Berxhard. I appreciate it vei-y much. 

iVIr. Lexzxer. Mr. Chairman, before IMr. Benihard leaves, I would 
like, if I may, have his documents marked as exhibits in evidence and 
be submitted to the committee, and also the two exhibits that he has 
identified this afternoon. 

Mr. Chainnan, may that be done? 

Senator Ervix. Yes, without objection, they will be accepted in evi- 
dence and marked appropriately as exhibits. 

[The docmnents submitted by Mr. Bernhard were marked exhibits 
Nos. 244-1 through 244-31*. The so-called Ficker letter was previously 
entered as exhibit No. 197 in Book 10, p. 4266, and the memorandum 
from Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General was marked exhibit 
No. 245.**] 

Mr. Lexzxer. I also want to thank Mr. Bernhard in behalf of the 
committee, and join Avith Senator Baker and Senator Ervin. I think 
your testimony has been some of the most significant testimony re- 
ceived. I am sorry that it did not receive wider coverage than it has. 

*For page numbers that exhibits Nos. 244-1 through 244-31 appear on, see contents 

••Exhibit No. 245 appears on p. 4889. 


I hope the significance and the importance of it is grasped by this 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Ervix' I think you had some other questions, Mr. Madigan. 

Mr. Madigax. I do not think I have any other questions, Mr. Chair- 

Senator Ervix. There is just one other thing about financing this 
election. The Senate bill carried some limitations on the amount of 
cash to be received as contributions on this, first, as expenditures for 
political purposes. Do you not think there should be some substantial 
limitation on the use of cash in political campaigns ? 

Mr. Berxhard. I absolutely do. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I might say that I noted with in- 
terest that the witness indicated that they kept a small amount of 
cash in the safe for petty cash purposes and other purposes. I cannot 
resist being reminded of Howard Preston, who was a great banker 
in Tennessee. He came from a small town in middle Tennessee called 
Woodbury. And he said one day, that when he left home to make his 
way in the world, his mother said, "Son, you oughter start a business 
of your own and be the boss or go w4th a large company and get in 
charge of petty cash." 

Mr .'Berxhard. We may do just the opposite. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervix. Thank you, Mr. Bernhard. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

[IVhereupon, at 3 :35 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Thursday, November 1, 1973.] 


Exhibit No. 227 

[From the Washington Star, Sept. 27, 1971] 

(By Morris Siegel) 

On the other hand. Hubert H. Humphrey, who, incidentally didn't make it 
working with Bob Short either, apparently doesn't miss anything that went with 
I being No. 2 except his chauffeur-driven car, if he misses that. . . . He cabbed it 
over to a luncheon with editors the other day and once the hack driver discovered 
'who his distinguisiied passenger was he wouldn't accept any money for the 
fare. . . . "No way, Senator, I'm gonna take any money from you. You oufeht 
to be President," he said proudly when Humphrey offered him money. . . . On 
the return trip to Capitol Hill, Humphrey got into another cab and it was the 
same story all over again. . . . Now if somebody will come along and offer 
Humphrey an airiJl^Jie ride in a reasonable facsimile of Air Force One he might 
not even miss being President. 




Exhibit No. 228 




^^'Damoui. joz. Q/alu^i." 

AM lOfh ST., N.W, 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 

347-5778 f 

/ "^-^ / 1 

\ CAb\e ^eVec^se 



Exhibit No. 229A 


Exhibit No. 229B 


Exhibit No. 229C 


Exhibit No. 229D 


Exhibit No. 230 

In 1966, I was attending Murray when I became involved in my first out 
of state campaign. A young progressive lawyer was running for the US Senate 
in Tennessee. I took frequent trips down across the border to help work as a 
volunteer in the Howard Baker Jr. campaign. I helped stuff envelopes and make 
house to house canvasses in Nashville and Hazel, Tennessee. These house to 
house canvasses were a new tactic to me. The deep south person to person low 
key type of campaign was somewhat different to the big city mass media 
campaigns I had gone through in 1964 in Louisville. The Baker campaign in 
1966 was successful and to the day the impression of hand to hand, mouth to 
mouth tactic sticks out in my mind as one of the most effective. 

1967 was the year of the big Republican primary in Kentucky. Two distinctly 
opposite men filed for the governorships in the 67 primary. One was a big city 
political boss that was used to dictating policy. This candidate was Marlow 
Cook. The other candidate was a country lawyer used to the "small town" 
folksy manner of campaigning. This candidate was Louie Nunn. Again my father 
was also a candidate. He filed for Clerk of the Court of Appeals. When my father 
first filed for the office he received a hands-off attitude from the County Judge 
Cook. When it became evident that the two major candidates were going to 
slate candidates for the major state offices Cook came to my father and told 
him to withdraw from the clerks race. When my father refused Mr. Cook 
ordered him fired. This ius-ide look at political pressure showed me that politics 
is very educational but very risky and uncertain. 

It was during the '67 Governors race that I became most enthusiastically 
involved. I was attending Murray and was President of the Murray State 
Young Republicans Club. During the primary election I travelled all over the 
state and became familiar with all types of county, city, and statewide campaign 
organizations. The primary was the biggest and closest in state Republican his- 
tory. Louie Nunn won the nomination and eventually the governorship. 

The fall general election was the most active and educational I had ever been 
involved in. While traveling during the '67 campaign I met more people and 
ate more cold sandwiches than I thought existed. The election was when I 
learned about local organization. I was assisted by out of state experts. It was 
during the '67 election that I learned how to organize and assist complete strang- 
ers for political motive. I worked close with a man* sent down to Kentucky 
from Washington DC to organize and train young college students. The most 
important thing I learned was how to be influential and unnoticed at the same 

I worked in local and state elections regularly until 1972. The events that led 
up to this work were very strange to me. As I mentioned I first heard of this 
national job while I was working at Ford Motor Company. In Mid-February of 
1972 I was called at work and asked to work for an unidentified national orga- 
nization. A man whom I did not know, called me. He knew all about me and my 
political training and activities. The person asked me if I would meet him to dis- 
cuss this job. I was suspicious to a certain extent so I told him the only meeting I 
would have would be in Louisville. According to my set-up plan. On February 26 
I met a young man named Jason Rainer at the Executive Inn lobby in Louisville. 
At this meeting Jason explained to me that he worked for a group of individuals 
that were interested in politics and needed some young men to investigate differ- 
ent Democratic primary organizations and report on them. At this meeting very 
few details were discussed. The major outcome of this first meeting was that 
I would always work alone and that I would be able to use my own methods for 
the surA'eillance. Jason told me that I would start to work the 15th of March. 
When I questioned him about my job at Ford's he suggested I just take a leave 
of absence. I told him the only kind of leave I could get was an educational 
leave to attend school. He suggested that I take that and that his bosses could 
get me some college credits for the type of work I would be doing to explain the 
leave if needed. I arranged the leave from work and on March 16 I received a 
call from a young lady saying she was Jason's secretary and that he would 
wire me some expense money the 17th. On the 20th of March Jason called and 
told me he wanted me to go to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the next day. 

♦I later discovered that his name was Roger Stone. This was also confirmed later when 
F.B.I, asent named Simon told me in Louisville that Stone had testified before a federal 
grand jury in New York. 



My instructions were to go to Milwaukee and work in the Ed Muskie campaign 
as a volunteer and report on the campaign organization and the people working in 
the campaign organization. I was in Milwaukee from March 21 to March 31. 

My next assignment was in Philadelphia, Penna. I went to Philly on April 
phrey's headquarters. It was in Philly that I was most successful at infiltrating 
a headquarters. I was in a tru.sted position as one of the phone bank head- 
quarters and gained the complete confidence of the organization staff. I was often 
introduced to staff members by other staff members as a very hard working dedi- 
cated worker. 

My next trip took me to California. I left for California on April 30. I stayed 
until June 2. While in California I spent most of my time in Humphrey's head- 
quarters but I did work in the McGovern headquarters on occasion. 

On June 20 I was called to Washington to confer with one of the "bosses". I 
stayed in Washington until July 2. After my mysterious phone call with the big 
"boss" I spent the rest of my time working around the McGovern National head- 
quarters. I came back to Louisville and packed to go to Florida on an assign- 
ment. I went to Florida on July 5 and stayed until July 13. While in Florida. I 
worked in McGovem's Headquarters at the Doral Hotel. 

When I returned to Louisville I went on a short trip to the lake. On the 15th 
of July, Jason called me and told me that the operation I worked in was being 
dissolved. I had been expecting such a call since the news broke about the con- 
nection between the Reelect the President Committee and one of the men caught 
in the break-in of the Democrat National headquarters. During my tenure with 
the unidentified organization I noticed a concern for lawful tactics and I was 
often encouraged to be very careful that I did nothing illegal. 


Exhibit Xo. 231 

March 2i.— Arrived in Milwaukee at 5 :20 PM Tuesday 21 March 1972. Checked 
into Pfister Hotel room 208. cleaned up and ate supper. Drove around in taxi 
and checked out McGovern, Jackson, McCarthy and Mu